Sitting of 6 November 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Fireworks
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What action her Department is taking to enforce safety legislation associated with fireworks. [136674]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): The safety of fireworks is governed by the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997. Enforcement is the responsibility of the trading standards service. Display and storage of fireworks are controlled by local authorities under the Health and Safety Executive's Explosives Act 1875.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that long list of measures, but is not the best way of enforcing the safety regulations to tackle the antisocial behaviour that is all too often associated with fireworks? Will he ensure that those regulations, and the new regulations announced by the Secretary of State, will he strictly enforced to ensure the safety of both people and pets?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I wholeheartedly agree. I think that the House owes a debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who introduced the Fireworks Bill as a private Member's Bill. It is important to tackle antisocial behaviour, which is why we are pleased that the regulations will ban under-18s from having fireworks in public places and double the penalties imposed on those throwing fireworks. I think that those measures accord with our strategy to deal with antisocial behaviour.
    Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister acknowledge that nowadays there is widespread ignorance as to who Guy Fawkes was? Apparently, the most popular candidates for the bonfire this year are President George Bush and the about-to-be-crowned leader of the Conservative party.
    On a more serious note, on the basis of the introduction of the new Fireworks Act 2003—which he commended—will the Minister ensure that the
    914
    regulations directly target safety issues and the nuisance and distress caused to people and animals in a way that does not needlessly destroy businesses and jobs, and enables people to carry on enjoying fireworks in a responsible manner?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about safety. This year's safety campaign concerned sparklers. At first people did not think that appropriate, but last year 80 children were injured by sparklers, which reach a temperature of 1,000° C, 10 times the boiling point of water. They are in fact very dangerous.
    We must make sure that schoolchildren and young people are aware of the dangers of fireworks. We need a balance between regulation and ensuring that we do not affect businesses, but the safety issues are important. I am pleased that many local authorities, police forces and fire authorities have worked together to try to get the safety message cross.
    Mr. Bob Laxton: I hope that the new regulations prove effective. I suspect that the number of complaints about the effects of fireworks has, if anything, been greater this year than in earlier years. If the regulations prove ineffective, what prospect will there be of a total ban on the sale of fireworks other than for publicly organised events?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view, but I hope that he will join us in trying to ensure that the regulations do work, because they provide for dramatic improvements in safety and reductions in antisocial behaviour. I hope that he will concentrate on that aspect and work with stakeholders in his constituency. Let us see if the regulations work first; if they do not, we shall have to return to the issue.
    Chris Grayling: While there is much to welcome in the Fireworks Act, can the Minister assure us that the Government will not use the section referring to potential licensing to introduce regulations requiring every local primary school, guides group or scouts group that holds an annual display to engage in a complicated licensing process?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that will not happen. The licensing regime will concentrate on the sale of fireworks. At present there is a registration scheme for shops. The idea is to establish a licensing scheme to prevent any abuse of the rules on selling fireworks to young people.

    Deprived Areas
    Andy Burnham: What action she is taking to help enterprise in deprived areas. [136675]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My Department promotes the development of small enterprises and investment by larger firms, particularly in the assisted areas.
    Andy Burnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some recent manufacturing losses have involved low-value, high-volume products, often in some of our

    915
    most deprived areas? The physical inheritance of those areas from their industrial past—the mills and the pits—means that they are among the hardest to regenerate. I welcome the successful regeneration of northern cities, and I welcome the great northern cities that we now have; but does the Minister think there is a case for commissioning a special study, along with the northern regional development agencies, to investigate what more can be done to regenerate hard-to-reach northern towns?
    Ms Hewitt: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the loss of, in particular, traditional manufacturing areas in some of the most disadvantaged towns, including those in his constituency. Let me draw his attention, however, to what we have already been able to do, in his constituency and more generally in the north-west, through regional selective assistance and the grants—which I know he welcomed—to Patak's Foods and, more recently, Corbett Packaging, which is relocating in his constituency. Those are good examples of our commitment to modern manufacturing and to the securing of good jobs, especially in our most disadvantaged communities.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that in his Budget speech on 9 April the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about adding to the incentives for small business creation, and that, whatever the merits of individual measures, the sea of regulation is now deeper and more hazardous than any with which business has previously had to contend, can the right hon. Lady now tell me and the House what assessment she has made of the merits of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 in the United States?
    Ms Hewitt: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's contributions about red tape, but in response to the rather difficult and confused metaphor that he used, I have to say that he is wrong. The number of regulations each year that impose a cost on business has fallen since 1996, and we have taken a number of steps—simplifying the VAT regime, for instance—to make life simpler and easier for small business. The hon. Gentleman referred to some good examples of practice in the United States; we did indeed look at that and learned from it in creating and strengthening the Better Regulation Task Force and our whole system of regulatory scrutiny. That is why the OECD says that we have one of the best regulation and regulatory reform regimes in the world.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that enterprise in a deprived area such as mine remains heavily dependent on the fortunes of the pottery industry, which in turn heavily depends on exports? In that context, does she share my concern about the 30 per cent. tariff on pottery imports from the United Kingdom to the United States? That swingeing tariff is having a very detrimental effect. Will she look into it with some degree of urgency, and make the necessary representations to her colleagues in the European Union?
    Ms Hewitt: Yes, of course I will. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and he will know, as do other
    916
    hon. Members, of the enormous efforts that we have made to deal with the unlawful tariffs that the United States has imposed on imports of our steel—a matter on which we shall soon have the final ruling from the World Trade Organisation. The tariffs on pottery imports into the United States are a real hindrance to companies in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere, which have quite enough problems to contend with already. I shall certainly see what we can do to help, both bilaterally and within the WTO.

    Fireworks
    Phil Sawford: What steps she has taken to control the sale and use of fireworks. [136676]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 prohibit the supply of consumer-type fireworks to those under 18 years of age. They also prohibit the supply of dangerous types of fireworks to the general public—bangers, fireworks of erratic flight and so on. Under the Fireworks Act 2003, we will regulate to make it an offence for under-18s to possess fireworks in a public place, and to prohibit the possession of category 4 fireworks by any person other than a professional. In the new year we will enforce in law the firework industry's current voluntary ban on air bombs.
    Phil Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and for his earlier comments. Last night, London echoed to the sound of fireworks as families and communities came together in their thousands to enjoy the fun and spectacle—but for many, the misuse of fireworks blights their lives, threatens their homes, terrifies their pets and destroys their quality of life. I welcome the new proposals and, although no one wants to be a killjoy, I ask my hon. Friend to do everything he can to ensure that the police and local authorities enforce any new legislation to stop the misuse of fireworks and stamp out that menace in our communities.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who over the years has campaigned vigorously to ensure that people do not suffer injury from fireworks. I pay tribute to his work. I was pleased to see that last year's figures showed a 25 per cent. reduction over the previous year, so the safety message is, I hope, getting through. I assure him that we shall do everything we can to ensure that people use fireworks safely.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: May I take it that the extremely sensible decision to prevent under-18s from possessing fireworks indicates that the Government will take a similarly robust and sensible line on votes at 16?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I am happy to say that that is not a matter for me.
    Mr. Adrian Bailey: I thank the Minister for his comments, and I want to emphasise that the number of complaints about fireworks has been growing year by year. Indeed, I have received from a

    917
    constituent of mine—Mr. Bill Woodward, who is 80 today—a newspaper cutting from the Tipton Herald of 1963, the year in which he started his campaign for legislation on fireworks. I seek an assurance that the Minister will introduce those elements of the Fireworks Act 2003 that can be introduced as soon as possible, preferably before Christmas, so that I can reassure Mr. Woodward that the fruits of his labour will be achieved in his lifetime.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I would be pleased if my hon. Friend would give my congratulations to Mr. Woodward on achieving his 80th birthday, and on his work on firework campaigning. We will include in regulation as soon as possible—before the new year—those elements of the 2003 Act that we can include. Hopefully, all the regulations will be in place by July of next year in readiness for the subsequent firework celebrations.
    Mr. Bill Tynan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one current major problem—the British Fireworks Association is on board in this regard—is that the simplicity of the application form for an import licence is allowing unscrupulous firms to import hundreds of tonnes of fireworks and distribute them indiscriminately, which is causing many of the problems with antisocial behaviour? Will he consider changing the terms of the import licence application to make it more difficult for such companies to import fireworks?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I am happy to address that issue with my hon. Friend, to whom I earlier paid tribute for his work on firework; indeed, it is his work that has got us where we are today. I know that he has raised this issue with my ministerial colleagues. I am happy to discuss it with him, and I am sure that we can come to an arrangement. He is right—illegal fireworks are part of the problem and we need to work with the industry and to have proper regulation.

    Employers' Liability Insurance
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What assessment her Department has made of the impact of the recent changes in the cost of employers' liability compulsory insurance cover on UK businesses. [136677]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The Department of Trade and Industry is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions, which oversees this insurance, and with the Treasury, which oversees insurance markets.
    I have encouraged the Association of British Insurers and the Federation of Small Businesses to adopt a code of good practice, ensuring 21 days' notice of renewals. We have produced guidance to help insurers better distinguish between good and bad safety management and I am pleased to see it reported that this year's rises are more modest than previously.
    Mr. Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and I welcome his announcement, although the situation in my constituency, which is heavily dependent on small and medium-sized enterprises, indicates that
    918
    that will not be enough. Some 25 per cent. of businesses in my constituency have reported an increase of 100 per cent. or more in the cost of employers' liability compulsory insurance premiums in the past 12 months. Can meaningful regulation be introduced to ensure that the insurance industry operates in a transparent manner and does not discriminate against SMEs in that way?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am concerned about reports that the insurance industry has been using employers' liability compulsory insurance as a loss leader, writing premiums well below underwriting losses and making subsequent adjustments. Of course, small businesses find that very difficult to cope with. The Office of Fair Trading looked at this issue in the light of factors such as competitiveness and transparency and decided not to take action at this stage. However, the DTI always keeps such matters under review.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Is the Minister aware that SMEs in Northern Ireland are suffering a double jeopardy, in that their premiums are already beyond mainland levels? Does he understand that there has been an average increase of 500 per cent. in the past three years? The premium of one of my constituents, who has a no-claim record, was £500 three years age? now, it is £8,000. Businesses in Northern Ireland cannot sustain such increases. A fact-finding study in November 2002 reported in March 2003, but no action was taken. A further study commenced last month. SMEs in Northern Ireland cannot wait any longer—they are going out of business as I speak. Will the Minister expedite his resolution of this serious problem?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am aware of the problems in Northern Ireland, because I discussed them on my last visit to see representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses there. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) highlights what appear to be unacceptable escalations in premiums. We have been working with and on the Association of British Insurers to try to ensure that proper risk assessments of companies are made. I visited several small businesses that, without experiencing circumstances that might adversely affect their claims, have seen their premiums rise to unacceptable levels. I have made it clear to the insurance industry that such rises are indeed unacceptable.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Minister referred to the Federation of Small Businesses, but has he seen the latest "Financial Statement and Budget Report", which pointed out that 6 per cent. of its members have faced reductions in profits as a direct result of soaring insurance premiums? Furthermore, 19 per cent. are having to lay off staff, and a worrying 8 per cent. reported that they were trading without proper insurance. A year ago, the Minister said that he took that issue very seriously. We have had several reports and heard many platitudes, but when is the small firms Minister really going to listen to small firms?
    Nigel Griffiths: I deplore any company that is trading without proper insurance, which is illegal. I advise the hon. Gentleman to supply any information on failures to hold valid insurance to the Health and Safety

    919
    Executive. Since the matter was raised last year and before, the latest survey, which was last month—the Bank of Scotland has commented on it—showed that, whatever the hon. Gentleman says about returns and profits, a third of small businesses intend to recruit staff and 20 per cent. are to increase net investment. That tells me that small businesses have, in their customary way, coped with great fortitude and are not being deflected from making the necessary investment to grow. That is what I want to see.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Does my hon. Friend understand that it is not just small and medium-sized enterprises that are affected by the problem? There are several construction companies in my constituency, and in the past they prudently entered into two or three-year deals to cover insurance premiums—but when they reached the renewal date, they found that those premiums were doubling or trebling. Those companies require employers liability insurance for health and safety reasons, because the construction industry is one of the most dangerous. If they have either to cut corners or to reduce staff, it is not good for the industry as a whole. Big businesses are being hit as well as small, and who will pay for that? It will be the safety of the workers.
    Nigel Griffiths: As the Minister responsible for construction, I know that that sector has one of the best safety records in the world, and I do not want anything to jeopardise it. I hope that my hon. Friend and the House will be pleased to learn that the DTI construction directorate has engaged an insurance industry specialist to liaise more closely with the industry to ensure that it is properly covered. The necessary steps must also be taken to ensure that building and construction sites meet the highest safety standards, which will also help to reduce their insurance premiums. I want to see them rewarded for taking such action.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I draw the Minister's attention to a small construction company in my constituency, which, after decades of claim-free operation, has had an eightfold increase in premiums in five years? That is clearly a serious problem for companies that have taken account of the safety factors, but are still being penalised by an insurance industry that seems deaf to the claims records and the needs of small businesses.
    Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman highlights a matter that we all find unacceptable. I am sure that he has made direct representations on behalf of his constituents to the insurance company concerned, and I am happy to add my voice as the Minister and write to the company myself.

    Stamp Duty Land Tax
    Mr. Mark Prisk: What recent representations her Department has made to HM Treasury concerning the impact of stamp duty land tax on small businesses. [136678]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made
    920
    representations to the Treasury concerning the potential impact of the proposed changes on businesses. She was pleased that the change announced on 20 October will assist small and medium-sized enterprises and business start-ups, and she welcomed the Chancellor's decision to more than double exemption for businesses with a net present value of less than £150,000.
    Mr. Prisk: The Minister knows that businesses small and large remain bitterly opposed to the fourfold increase in tax on their leases. Is he also aware that business feels strongly that that will distort the leasehold market and restrain small business investment? Would he, as the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise, agree to meet a small delegation of businesses so that they can express their concerns on a matter that may well distort the leasehold market for small business right across the country?
    Nigel Griffiths: I do not accept that. Almost two thirds of commercial leases signed by small businesses will be exempt. Previously, in most cases, stamp duty was paid, if at all, on 2 per cent. of one year's rent. Now the first £150,000 is exempt, and thereafter the rate is 1 per cent. The entire House should welcome this measure to close a tax loophole. I regularly meet the key federations and organisations representing small businesses, and I shall be happy to discuss the matter with them.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the sheer difficulty experienced by those who apply for grants? Would he contact the Association of Marine Scientific Industries, which is particularly concerned about Natural Environment Research Council applications?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am happy to respond in writing to my hon. Friend.

    Workplace Consultation
    Mr. Wayne David: What action she is taking to ensure greater rights to consultation in the workplace. [136679]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The information and consultation directive which comes into force in March 2005 will give new rights to employees to consultation about matters that affect them in the workplace.
    Mr. David: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would make a great deal of sense if companies did not wait for the deadline of 2005, and if companies and trade unions co-operated—like Tesco and Asda, for example—to ensure that there is effective consultation long before 2005?
    Ms Hewitt: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am delighted to say that we have already been working closely with both the CBI and the TUC. I pay tribute to Digby Jones and Brendan Barber for the work that they have done in agreeing a framework for implementation. Now that that is in place, well in advance of the directive coming into effect, I hope that many more businesses

    921
    will take advantage of the opportunity to create an effective partnership with their work force and its representatives.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Given that Britain faces more acute competition—[Interruption.] I shall take three minutes over this question. Given that Britain faces more acute competition internationally for both investment and jobs, will the Secretary of State undertake, whenever additional obligations are placed on British employers, to carry out an assessment of the likely impact of those obligations, regardless of how desirable or well-intended they may be, on the job prospects over the next 10 years of less-skilled workers?
    Ms Hewitt: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is in favour of competition, if not for the leadership of his own party. He raises a serious matter—the impact upon the least-skilled workers in our community of the enormous process of restructuring that is taking place not just in the United Kingdom and Europe, but right across the world. It is therefore central to our skills strategy, to the work that we are doing in the regional development agencies—which I think the Opposition intend to abolish—and to the work that we are doing in the most disadvantaged areas that we help those low-skilled workers, who are most vulnerable to displacement in the global economy, to get the skills and the jobs that they need. I remind the hon. Gentleman that despite all those global changes, we have 1.5 million more people in work than we had six years ago.

    Fireworks
    Mr. Andy Reed: What action her Department is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour and nuisance caused by fireworks. [136680]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): My Department has had discussions with a range of stakeholders, including the fireworks industry, the police and environmental health officers to formulate proposals for regulations under the Fireworks Act 2003 on antisocial behaviour and nuisance matters. Areas covered include the prohibition of air bombs and a curfew.
    Mr. Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that ensuring that we enforce those regulations will be crucial to deciding the future of the firework industry? Constituents continually complain about the noise of fireworks. If we cannot get the issue right in the next 24 months, our constituents will come back time and again to ask for further regulations or even an outright ban on fireworks. Many of us who enjoy peaceful fireworks would not want that to happen. We are not killjoys, but we recognise the real concerns felt by our constituents.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. The firework industry has been very responsible in the work that it undertook alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). A balance
    922
    has to be struck between the industry, operating responsibly, and the safety of consumers. The regulations will work and will provide the balance that we need so that people can enjoy the firework season. The regulations will ensure that antisocial behaviour is not accepted.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcome what the Secretary of State and the Minister have done so far, but will they go further? We must face the fact that all fireworks are dangerous. In the wrong hands, some are dangerous weapons. Is it time to introduce a licensing system, so that only responsible organisations would have a licence to use fireworks because they would do so properly?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: The licensing regime is important and that is why it is included in the regulations to be made under the Fireworks Act 2003. However, people must make sound judgments. Fireworks are explosives and are dangerous. We need a balance between what people enjoy—safe firework displays around bonfires or for Diwali—and ensuring that people know how to use fireworks. That is why the regulations will say that people must be trained in the safe use of particular fireworks. It is a question of balance and the regulations are appropriate. I hope that they will work and that my hon. Friend will welcome them.
    Mr. Eric Illsley: Is my hon. Friend aware that in some situations antisocial behaviour with fireworks borders on acts of terrorism? In an incident in my constituency, a powerful firework, packed with nuts and bolts and other shrapnel, was detonated in a telephone box, parts of which blew into a housing estate. Such fireworks need to be banned before serious injury is caused by those people, not necessarily under-18s, who use them to cause criminal damage.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend really does point to a serious issue and the dilemma that we face. If we ban fireworks completely, we will be faced with illegal and home-made fireworks. They could cause all sorts of damage to the individual using them and to others in the community. It is a question of balance, but we hope that the antisocial behaviour orders will stop youngsters under 18—who are the main culprits—misusing fireworks.

    Post Office Network
    Mr. Andrew Turner: How many urban post offices have been (a) proposed and (b) approved for closure since the inception of the network reinvention scheme. [136683]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I am understand from Post Office Ltd. that to the end of September, it had entered into public consultation on 886 closure proposals and that 540 branches had closed under the programme.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for his reply and the attention that he has paid to the concerns of my constituents about post office closures in recent days. He told the House yesterday that
    "there is a properly managed process for the Post Office to configure its network to meet the needs of the communities that it serves".—[Official Report, 5 November 2000; Vol. 412, c. 909.]
    Does that mean that the Post Office does not simply wait for requests from postmasters and postmistresses to retire, but proactively approaches some of them with the suggestion that they might take advantage of the urban network reinvention scheme? In other words, does the Post Office take a strategic view of where sub-post offices should be?
    Mr. Timms: It is vital that such a strategic view is taken. Indeed, that is one of the benefits of the new arrangements being put in place, about which the hon. Gentleman knows well. The Post Office will consult on the ultimate configuration of the post office network in a constituency or group of constituencies, instead of consulting on individual closures.
    We want to ensure that we have a configuration for the network that is viable and sustainable. Everyone knows that a lot of the traditional business of post offices has been declining. For example, 43 per cent. of benefits recipients now have their money paid into a bank account, compared with 26 per cent. in 1996, before direct payments started. Investment by the Government means that there is now an attractive future based on banking but, to prosper, the urban network needs an appropriate configuration and size, given current demands. It is important to take that strategic view.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Minister aware of the sheer inadequacy of the Post Office's consultation process? When people make representations, they are likely to receive a letter 80 per cent. of which is devoted to the argument about why massive changes must take place, which pre-empts the decision to be made. That happened in Coal Aston in my constituency, where the branch is to close on 6 December. I hope that the matter will be looked at closely before that date, with a view to reconsideration. The considerable number of representations that were made had various unique characteristics, and they must be taken seriously. In that way, I hope that we can still stop the closure.
    Mr. Timms: It is important that such representations are taken seriously. That is why we have given Postwatch the funding and resources to do an effective job on behalf of the Post Office's customers. Of just over 1,100 proposals submitted to Postwatch by the end of October, 43 were withdrawn and 60 were modified before public consultation. Of those that went to consultation, 48 were modified and 13 were withdrawn for further consideration. That shows that there is effective protection of the interests of Post Office customers. The role of Postwatch is key in that.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Minister confirm that Labour's policy of ending the cash payment of pensions and social security benefits at post offices is cutting the income of many sub-post offices by
    924
    as much as 40 per cent? Will he also confirm that Labour approves of the policy of paying bonuses to the management of Post Office Network for accelerating the programme of post office closures? Will he further confirm that, once Labour has decimated the urban network, it will set about carving up the rural network as well?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those scores. May I wish him well in the reshuffle that we understand is planned for the Conservative Front Bench this afternoon, and express the hope that he will not be sacked by text message? For far too long, the Post Office has been locked in a declining market. Even now—and persistently under the previous Conservative Government—that market has been based on ration-book technology. Our investment of £500 million has given the network the technology to tackle the much larger, and growing, market for banking services. Those developments open up the prospect of a commercially successful future for the post office network, based on today's needs instead of yesterday's.
    Mr. David Lepper: Will the Minister acknowledge that residents in my Brighton and Hove constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "Brighton and Hove?"]—in the Brighton, Pavilion constituency that I represent are now two weeks into a consultation period on six post office closures? Other offices across the city are also to be closed, but none of the evidence underlying the Post Office's closure proposals has yet been published. That severely undermines people's ability to respond meaningfully to a consultation exercise. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Post Office to publish in full the evidence that underlies all its proposed closures, in my constituency and elsewhere?
    Mr. Timms: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the new procedure that he has described, which allows him to see what the ultimate configuration of post offices in his constituency will be, is better than dealing with proposed closures one by one, as used to be the case. I urge my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members concerned about proposals in their areas, to draw their concerns to the attention of Postwatch, a major part of whose work consists of protecting customer interests, in all constituencies. If my hon. Friend does that, I think he will find a ready ear for the concerns he has expressed.

    Small Business (Late Payment)
    Andrew George: If she will make a statement on the late payment of debts to small businesses. [136684]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): As a result of action taken by the Government since 1998, including the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998, the creation of the better payment practice group, the provision for small businesses to claim debt recovery costs and giving small and medium enterprise organisations rights to challenge unfair contract terms on behalf of their members, I am pleased to tell the

    925
    House that the average time taken to settle debts in the UK has reduced by more than a week, and is nine days less than the European average.
    Andrew George: I am pleased to hear that the Government are taking a robust line on late payers, but what are they doing about one of the worst of all late payers, namely, themselves? Only last week, for example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs admitted that £50 million is still owed to contractors who were involved in the clean-up after foot and mouth two years ago. Many of those companies are perilously close to bankruptcy, so when will the matter be cleared up, and will the companies be entitled to a statutory right to charge interest on those late payments?
    Nigel Griffiths: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman which companies will not be entitled to claim that statutory right: those who are perpetrating or seeking to perpetrate fraud against DEFRA. The hon. Gentleman and the House will know that my colleagues in DEFRA have paid out many hundreds of millions of pounds, but they are challenging the many fraudulent claims. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that in general the Government's payment record is 94.83 per cent. on time—up 3 per cent. in the past seven years.
    David Taylor: In a far-off life when the working week was only 60 or so hours, I had a good number of clients who were in the construction, textile and haulage industries. In terms of late payment, their main difficulty was that most of their income derived from a single client. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how, in those circumstances, the worthwhile changes that have been made can actually be used to extract faster payment? People are unlikely to bite too quickly the hand that is feeding them with most of their revenue.
    Nigel Griffiths: That is a real concern and I am sure that all hon. Members are aware of it. That is why we have taken several specific actions. The first is to allow representative organisations to take what might be considered a class action—I use the term loosely—on behalf of the companies, to overcome the fear factor. Secondly, when hon. Members raise cases with me I have undertaken to write to the large and powerful organisations that appear to be delaying payment. I am pleased to see that, in general, payment times are speeding up. We keep the matter under review, and the better payment practice group meets regularly to advise us on improvements.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: But in spite of the Minister's judicious and careful use of statistics, he knows perfectly well that Departments are among the worst offenders. In the interests of open government, will he publish a league table to name and shame those Departments that are the worst offenders in this respect?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been: such information is published. It is put in the public domain and in the Library. I completely reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion about Government payment. As I said, the record is 3 per cent.
    926
    better than under the last Administration, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell the House what he did at that time to make it so bad then.

    Internet/Broadband Access
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What action she is taking to increase the availability of (a) the internet and (b) broadband services within the U? and if she will make a statement. [136685]
    The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I welcome the recent news from Oftel that half of UK households are now connected to the internet. The network of 6,000 UK Online centres was completed last year. The Oxford Internet Institute reports that only 4 per cent. of the population lacks ready access to the internet.
    Eighty per cent. of UK households are now within reach of a broadband service—more than in the US. We are confident that the figure will reach 90 per cent. next year. We are approaching a broadband connection figure of 3 million. Wireless broadband and the growth of public sector broadband use will be especially helpful in further extending availability.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and commend him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for their continued enthusiasm for the spread of internet and broadband, which are, in a sense, the highway of the 21st century as rail and road were in the 19th century. However, the problem for my constituents—for example, in Grangemouth—is that a number of households or small and medium-sized enterprises are applying but no account is being taken of the fact that, in Grangemouth, we have BP, Syngenta, Avecia, GE Plastics and ENI Chemicals. They are all large users of the internet and broadband, yet they count as only one user. That means that SMEs cannot easily reach BT's targets. Can my hon. Friend take the question up with BT, to ensure that in industrial communities large users count as more than one unit?
    Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. The Office for National Statistics said that, in July, 48 per cent. of households had access to the internet, but that 56 per cent. of people have used the internet in the past three months, reflecting the fact that a lot of people are using the internet at work, at school and elsewhere. Many big companies will already have made their own arrangements, so they are not dependent on the upgrading of local exchanges. Nevertheless, I will ensure that the interesting point that my hon. Friend makes is drawn to the attention of BT. I will meet the chief executive of BT shortly, and I will put the point to him when I do so.
    Michael Fabricant: At the beginning of this year, the Government announced with some fanfare the broadband aggregation scheme—under which, for example, if there is a hospital, school or whatever in a rural area, there might be justification to provide broadband to those points. The Government went on to say—logically, I thought at the time—that that could enable broadband to be given to subscribers, but that has not happened. Nothing has happened? it has been all

    927
    talk and no do. Will the Minister prove me wrong and tell me precisely when the first exchange will be enabled under that scheme?
    Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that that initiative is very important. A great deal of progress has been made. All the regional aggregation bodies—he will be aware of them will be—established by the end of this month, and procurement through those bodies will start at the beginning of next year. That will be an effective way to change the basis for the service providers to invest in the provision of broadband in rural areas. Aggregation will take place at regional level, so we will be using the market as a powerful lever to improve private sector performance, but in a framework managed in the public interest by the public sector. The procurements will start in January, and I would expect the benefits to be felt very soon after that.
    Brian White: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will not be the equivalent of planning blight as people wait for the regional aggregation bodies to come into effect before they make decisions, and that public sector bodies such as local authorities can still honour the existing contracts?
    Mr. Timms: Yes, I think I can give that assurance. Of course, we are seeing a very rapid growth in broadband at the moment. Something like 150,000 extra connections are made each month, and there is no sign at all of that tailing off. Indeed, we hope it will accelerate. I think I can give an assurance that there will not be a hiatus as a result of the new arrangements being introduced; indeed, they will contribute to further acceleration and growth.

    Working Time Directive
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What assessment she has made of the implications of the working time directive on (a) the service sector and (b) manufacturing industry. [136686]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): The Department of Trade and Industry has commissioned research into the implementation of the working time regulations that considered a range of organisations, including those in the manufacturing and service sectors. The general conclusions drawn were that the regulations had marginal or no impact in 10 of the 20 organisations interviewed and that, where an impact was felt, it acted as an impetus to review work practices and work smarter. A recent follow-up study, published in July 2003, of a subset of those firms concluded that the recent legislative changes have not been problematic for most employers interviewed.
    Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister confirm the figure given by the British Chambers of Commerce showing that the total cost to industry of implementing the working time directive is £2.3 billion? Will he give a commitment today that he will meet the 23 November
    928
    deadline to negotiate an opt-out from the 48-hour limit? Will he stand up for British business and resist the working time directive?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I cannot help but notice that the hon. Lady is the only Back Bencher sitting on the Conservative Benches—perhaps lots of job application forms are going in after the coronation of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
    Miss McIntosh: Answer the question.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: The right hon. and learned Gentleman needs a mention because he refused to accept the working time directive in 1991. The working time directive is important to employees and employers because it gives people four weeks holiday and an appropriate working week. Good employer-employee relations develop from the working time directive. We are happy to ensure that the United Kingdom's position remains as it is.
    Hugh Bayley: Is my hon. Friend aware that for the second time in just a few weeks, the Nestle Rowntree factory in my constituency announced a large number of redundancies, in three figures? The working time directive is important in the confectionery industry because of the Easter and Christmas production peaks. The factory supplies throughout the EU, in the eurozone as well as the UK. It is essential that we have a level playing field so that we compete fairly with the Nestle Rowntree factories in Hamburg and Dijon. Does my hon. Friend agree that the regulations must be applied in exactly the same way in all factories?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to have a level playing field. I am sorry to learn of the situation with Nestle Rowntree, which has been in his constituency for many years in a variety of guises. I am happy to report that I work with Employment Ministers across the EU and the new accession countries. It is necessary to have a flexible approach to labour markets while ensuring that there are minimum standards for employees.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Child Care
    Andrew George: What steps she is taking to improve access to child care for women. [136666]
    The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are committed to improving access to good-quality child care for all parents seeking places for their children. We are spending record amounts on child care, with a £1.5 billion budget by 2006 for sure start, early years and child care.
    Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that child care facilities provided by employers—necessarily larger employers—are tax deductible, whereas those who work for small employers and use child care facilities pay tax? In areas such as mine, people predominantly work for small employers, are on low incomes and pay a disproportionate amount of their income on child care. Do the Government have plans to address that and equalise the mismatch?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and his colleagues in the Treasury are considering the issue of employer-supported child care. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the existence—not widely enough known—of child care vouchers that employers can provide to their employees. Those are particularly suitable for small businesses and relieve the employer of the cost of employers' national insurance contributions.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important for both parents and employers to have access to good information about child care as well having access to child care itself? Will she commend the work of Opportunity Links in my constituency, of which I am the unpaid chair, and, of course, Childcare Links, the Government's website, which gives information on child care and I understand receives about 7 million hits a month?
    Ms Hewitt: I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on Cambridge Opportunity Links, which she started before 1997. It was so successful that it formed the basis for the national roll-out of Opportunity Links and it provides an invaluable service. I am delighted to congratulate not only my hon. Friend but everyone else associated with it.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: For the benefit of hon. Members, perhaps I should explain that there is meeting of the 1922 committee of the Conservative party, which explains the absence of my Back-Bench colleagues. I think I can, with some confidence, be the first to record officially my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who I assume will be successful.
    I commend the Minister for Women for having the courage to admit in her interview with The Daily Telegraph that the Government may have given the impression that they want all mothers to go out to work, and that her view was falsely given. I wish such grownup politics, with the Government admitting their mistakes, would happen more often. However, the loss of 20,000 childminders over the past three years has reduced a mother's choice in relation to child care. Is the right hon. Lady prepared to make another admission that the Government's favouring of institutional child care has also been a mistake?
    Ms Hewitt: I wish the hon. Lady well in the coming reshuffle and thank her for her remarks. I am clear—I have been advancing this argument for longer than I care to remember, and certainly for the past 15 years or
    930
    more—that it is the role of Government to support parents and families in choosing how they can best balance the care of their children and earning a living. That is what we are doing with our investment in child care, with the support that we are giving through child care tax credit and children's tax credit, and with the package of family-friendly measures that we introduced in April—which I hope the new leader of the Conservative party will not seek to abolish, given that he opposed all the social chapter measures when he was a member of the Cabinet.
    Given the mix of child care, I think that we are responding to the wishes of parents for good-quality day care and nursery care places that can integrate education, child care and support for families. We are at the forefront with our mix of child care, and what we are doing is being studied with great interest and admiration throughout the world.
    Ms Meg Munn: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that most parents want local child care. One of the problems for women in some poor areas has been an absence of childminders. What progress has been made in spreading the availability of childminders to all areas?
    Ms Hewitt: As we put in place the children centres—we have already announced the first 32 or so—which will be focused on the most disadvantaged communities, we will provide a base for day-care centres and also a base where childminders can come to get support and extra resources to improve the services that they can offer within their own homes or in the homes of the parents for whose children they are caring. That is the approach that will meet the different needs of families, especially in our poorest communities.
    Sandra Gidley: Despite the increase in child care places, there is still an unmet demand. Does the Minister share my concern that more and more families are having to resort to the use of au pair agencies? Au pairs are untrained, unchecked and often exploited. If the right hon. Lady shares my concern, will she tell the House what she plans to do?
    Ms Hewitt: There have been situations where au pairs have found themselves expected to take on far too much responsibility within the home, particularly for the care of a very small child, and where they have been exploited by their employers. I share the hon. Lady's concern about the position of some au pairs, although others do an outstanding job. I know that that is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children is considering.

    Employment Rights (Parents)
    Brian White: What action has been taken to (a) monitor and (b) increase the take up of the Government's measures to help mothers of (i) small children and (ii) disabled children. [136667]
    The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): The package of new laws implemented this April provides parents with more choice and more support in deciding how they balance work and child care in ways

    931
    that benefit everyone—employers, employees and children. Monitoring is important and we are working to develop a comprehensive range of information, both qualitative and quantitative. That includes the results of the second work-life balance study of employers which we published on Monday; monitoring changes in the workforce through the labour force surve; monitoring the number of calls to the ACAS helpline; and working with other bodies to survey specific target groups.
    To ensure take-up, we have undertaken a national advertising campaign and provided a package of guidance material to increase the take-up and to support employers and employees.
    Brian White: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Schemes such as sure start have been a tremendous success in my constituency and in others, but may I ask my hon. Friend to look at the public service agreements and cross-departmental and individual departmental targets, which interacting together can sometimes impede some of the objectives that she has set out. Will she consider that and have regard to blockages within individual targets and PSA agreements?
    Jacqui Smith: I hope that the targets set by the Government are not impeding the important progress that we have made in promoting the work-life balance both within and outside Government. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the range of policies to
    932
    support children, from sure start to improved tax benefits and investment in health and education, are important in ensuring that we have the right policies in place for families and the right choices in place for parents.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's measures to help mothers of disabled children are as much about addressing problems as about recognising potential? Given that a number of children with disabilities, especially those with autism, have great talents in music and art for example, will she and her colleagues do their utmost on an interdepartmental basis to ensure that those children's potential is fully realised?
    Jacqui Smith: My right hon. Friend has a proud record of supporting disabled children, and he has made an important point—the workplace flexibilities that we can offer the parents of disabled children are important if the children are to achieve their potential. My right hon. Friends the Minister for Children and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills put the need to maximise opportunities for disabled children at the centre of their work on the better integration of support services for disabled children. We need to make sure that we design services around disabled children to enable them to maximise their chances, not make them fit into administrative structures.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Mr. Eric Forth rose—
Hon. Members: Bye bye!
Mr. Forth: Can we have the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Water Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 11 NOVEMBER—Remaining stages of the Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the European Union (Accessions) Bill, followed by a debate on reforming the United Nations on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 12 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Fire Services Bill, followed by motions relating to stamp duty land tax orders.
THURSDAY 13 NOVEMBER—Money resolution relating to the Extradition Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Extradition Bill.
FRIDAY 14 NOVEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER—Commons consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, followed if necessary by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
TUESDAY 18 NOVEMBER—Commons consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, followed if necessary by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
WEDNESDAY 19 NOVEMBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, followed by Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
THURSDAY 20 NOVEMBER—Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
In respect of prorogation, I hope that it will be possible to prorogue no later than Thursday 20 November. The House will understand that that is subject to the progress of business in both Houses, but that looks like the most likely date at the moment.
The House will wish to be reminded that the next meeting of the Standing Committee on the Intergovernmental Conference is on Monday 10 November at 4.30 pm.
Mr. Forth: We are all very grateful, because at last we are getting a hint of some substantive business. It is significant that their lordships were mentioned so frequently because, sadly, it is they who are doing all the
934
work in Parliament these days. However, we are grateful for the crumbs that we get from their lordships, and they will give us something to do in a couple of weeks' time.
Can I ask the part-time Leader of the House—
Mr. Ken Purchase: What about the part-timers over there?
Mr. Forth: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are as intrigued by the predictability of Government Members' comments as I am. On the state visit of President Bush, when are we going to be told what arrangements are being made for the President of the United States to address, as I hope he will, Parliament or both Houses of Parliament? I can understand that there may be security considerations, but I hope that we will be given proper notice of the event, and I for one hope to get an invitation.
When will the pre-Budget statement be made? Is it being delayed because the Chancellor is ashamed of what it will contain? Will it contain yet more stealth taxes? Will property taxes be sneaked into it? We are already getting a stealth tax on business leases next week. I wonder whether the pre-Budget statement is being somehow covered up, concealed or delayed because the Chancellor does not want to tell us what is in it.
On a similar subject, when will we be given the local government settlement statement? I hope that we can be told that a statement will not be made at the very last minute, that it will be given in ample time and that we will have proper time to debate it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is something that affects every Member of this House and all our constituents. The local government settlement is an important annual event, and I hope that the part-time Leader will be able to tell us that it will be delivered in proper time and that we will also have proper time to discuss it and question Ministers about it.
When will we see the Penrose report on Equitable? Some 1 million pensioners—I suspect that they include constituents of all Members—have been very much affected by Equitable. I hope that we can receive a guarantee that the report will be brought to the House soon, and that when it is brought we will be given proper time to debate it. I want to question Ministers on it, as I am sure do other Members from both sides of the House. I hope that there will be no further delay before the Penrose report on Equitable is made available to us.
Does the part-time Leader of the House agree with either the Prime Minister or the Chancellor about the European Union? The other day, the Chancellor told us in The Daily Telegraph:
"the IGC must respond without ambiguities that might, if unravelled, undermine even the best of intentions."
He went on:
"Indeed our rejection of a federal European state and support for an outward-looking and flexible European Union is not a British obsession but can become, we believe, the settled view of most of Europe."
I thoroughly applaud what the Chancellor said—[Interruption.] The part-time Leader tells us that he, too, applauds it. Perhaps we can find time for a little debate on the subject? it could be entitled, "Who is right on Europe: the Prime Minister or the Chancellor?"

935
The Prime Minister could open the debate and the Chancellor could wind up, and between them they could see whether they could get their act together.
Mr. Hain: On behalf of the whole House, may I be the first to congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on becoming Conservative party leader in his Saddam Hussein-type election? The Government are delighted that Mr. Poll Tax is now leading Her Majesty's official Opposition. I am also pleased the shadow Leader of the House is still hanging on in there.
Mr. Forth: Just!
Mr. Hain: Like Custer's last stand. My vote goes to him, as one of the most treasured possessions of the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, the first of which was about President Bush's state visit. He will appreciate that a state visit is a matter for the palace and the President's office, and that there are particular security considerations. I shall certainly make it top of my list to ensure that he gets an invitation to whatever events are held—if he is still shadow Leader of the House. If he is no longer shadow Leader, I shall, in my generosity, nevertheless try to get him an invitation, as I have enjoyed my spats with him.
The Chancellor will make a statement on the pre-Budget report soon. That statement will reflect the strength of the British economy under this Government. We have low interest rates, and after the quarter point rise today, we still have lower interest rates than we were used to under the previous Conservative Government, which illustrates the economic stability that exists under our Labour Government. Together with low inflation and record employment, that will be reflected in the Chancellor's statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the local authority settlement. He will appreciate that, under our Government, settlements have been made earlier than usual. That will remain the case, and a statement will be made soon.
I appreciate the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about the Penrose report on Equitable Life. On behalf of our constituents, we all share those concerns, and I shall certainly seriously consider what he said.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the Prime Minister's and the Chancellor's views on the European Union. The truth is that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, other members of the Cabinet and I have exactly the same view. We are for Britain's membership of the European Union, unlike the shadow Leader of the House, who wants Britain to leave, losing nearly 3 million British jobs in all our constituencies in the process.
In respect of the intergovernmental conference negotiations, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been fully accountable to the House on numerous occasions. Our objective is to ensure that what we achieved when I represented the Government on behalf of the Cabinet in the Convention on the Future of Europe is a European Union that is a union
936
of nation states, not a federal superstate, with taxation decided at a national level, not harmonised at a Brussels level. That is, and will remain, the position of the British Government, and I am happy to clarify it.
Mr. Paul Tyler: My colleagues and I share the delight at the appointment of the new leader of the Conservative party, not least because we are taking a close interest in the real election that will take place in his constituency.
Since the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is presumably not sure whether this is his last appearance in his current role, I should like to paraphrase Churchill by saying that, if this is his swansong—some swan: some neck.
I have very much enjoyed responding to five Leaders of the House, particularly over the past two and half years in which we have engaged in a sort of threesome on Thursday afternoons. [Interruption.] I have played only a bit part in that, but I suggest that all three of us have a close interest in the way in which this House does its business. Will the Leader of the House give some thought, between now and the Queen's speech, to providing an opportunity to debate the way in which this place operates? In particular, it is time we had a debate—perhaps on the Adjournment—on the role of the so-called usual channels. In the past, because of associations with hunting and the Whips, the usual channels have been given rather a bad name, and the public may misunderstand their role. However, that role is essential—it is rather like the mysterious subterranean way in which the sewers support civilisation. Will the Leader of the House give us an opportunity to debate in the Chamber precisely how we handle our business—not least the way in which we try to improve legislation?
Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing to the House's attention the fact that there was a 20 per cent. Labour vote in Folkestone and Hythe at the last election. Now, of course, that Labour vote will be carefully considering the best way of removing the leader of the Conservative party.
I genuinely echo the hon. Gentleman's generous comments about the shadow Leader of the House. He is a proud parliamentarian—the hon. Gentleman and I share that with him. Although we have our differences, that is the key part of his role, and we respect that.
As for the hon. Gentleman's request for a debate on the usual channels, I am afraid that that is typical of the Liberal Democrats, who never expect to be in government—
Bob Russell: Is that why you switched?
Mr. Hain: As a result, they do not take the usual channels seriously. Does the hon. Gentleman want his own Chief Whip cut out of the usual channels? The Whips play a valuable role in making sure that the business of the House goes forward: he should seriously reflect on that.
Mr. Purchase: The Leader of the House mentioned today's 0.25 per cent. movement in interest rates. Will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come to the Dispatch Box next week to give the House his view on the effects that that change might have on manufacturing industry? We all accept that the high street and the housing market may be in need of a small increase in interest charges, but I urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance of ensuring that any fiscal measures at the Chancellor's disposal are used quickly in aid of our manufacturing industry.
Mr. Hain: First, I acknowledge my hon. Friend's considerable expertise and interest in manufacturing. He has long been an advocate of a strong manufacturing sector, as have I and many other Members of the House. He will know and be encouraged to note that a survey published only this week shows that growth in manufacturing is at its strongest for four years. The Government have created the economic stability which underpins manufacturing that has put it in a good position to resist the downturn in international trade and in a better position than many other competitor countries.
The quarter per cent. rate rise will be considered in its broad context. It shows an economy that is strengthening. The raising of the interest rates by the Bank of England shows that what it wanted to do was to ensure that the stability that the Government have locked in remains while the economy continues to grow and grow at a faster rate. That is welcome news for manufacturers, in terms of bigger markets and the growth that underpins them.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will be aware that we are looking forward to an election in Northern Ireland. Will he put it on his horizon that it might be wise for legislation that affects the whole nation—for example, disability legislation and issues of that nature—to be kept before this House, particularly if a Government is not formed in Northern Ireland? In that way, the people of Northern Ireland will get the benefits that they should get as part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Hain: Legislation such as disability legislation will have to be considered in terms of what is devolved and what is properly reserved for Westminster. I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have noted it too.
Julie Morgan: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the plight of the Allied Steel and Wire workers who came to Westminster earlier this week to meetings arranged by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) and for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). Is there nothing that he can do to get us out of this impasse? It is outrageous that the steelworkers have paid into the pension fund all their life and now are entitled to nothing. Is there no way forward that he can find that will prevent them from having to go to court to try to seek what is rightfully theirs? Can he not implore Ministers to get together to find some way out of this disgraceful situation?
Mr. Hain: I agree that it is a disgraceful situation. Successive Ministers have met delegations from Allied Steel and Wire and I commend my hon. Friend and other Cardiff Members for the way in which they have fought the cause of these workers who have been robbed of their pensions. She will appreciate that the Government have to consider the knock-on effects for other similar situations and the law in this respect. One reason why we are introducing new legislation, following the Green Paper on pensions reform, is precisely to address the plight of such workers who have been so badly treated on their pensions.
Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Leader of the House consider asking the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to the House and make an early statement? This week part of the trial dealing with bovine TB was stopped. Since 1999 the Government have spent £158 million on dealing with this scourge, including £45 million on the culling trial. The cessation of part of this trial has left the world of agriculture in a state of great confusion. The future is unclear and we need a statement on that. Will he bear in mind the fact that, also this week, we have seen the beginning of the end of parts of the agencies that serve DEFRA, under the Haskins review? The House has not heard the details of it and the time is ripe to probe it.
Mr. Hain: The Haskins review has just reported and in due course, following consideration by the Secretary of State, who will want to reflect on it, she will report to the House. I am aware of the problem of bovine TB, as is she, and we are monitoring it closely and intend to keep it under supervision.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we will have a further debate on the new deal? Now that it has been a success in providing more stable employment in certain areas, perhaps it could be introduced to political parties as well. Some of us just cannot understand why there is not an agency to which political parties can go, to stop this business of having two-year supply leaders of the Tory party.
Mr. Hain: That is a novel suggestion, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State. Obviously, it is of great concern—I am sure that it will be of interest to the whole House—that the official Opposition want to abolish the new deal, and that the new leader of the Conservative party is wedded to that policy. I am sure that, when my hon. Friend's proposal is considered, that issue will also be considered. Nearly 500,000 people have been brought into work and trained for work opportunities under the new deal, and it would be criminal to scrap it. That will be one of the issues to be contested at the next general election.
Hywel Williams: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the lessons to be learned from the devolved bodies about scrutiny? I ask this in the light of the constitution unit's report, which shows that those bodies are better at keeping in touch with the public, and that pressure from their Opposition parties is more likely to lead to change by the Executive. Would there be lessons to be learned in that regard for

939
under-employed Labour Back Benchers who are tempted to brief against their colleagues in Cardiff, and perhaps for the Secretary of State for Wales as well?
Mr. Hain: I am not sure about under-employed Labour Back Benchers, but there are certainly a lot of under-employed Conservative Back Benchers who are presumably celebrating the election of their new leader somewhere upstairs at the moment. One of the advantages of devolution, particularly in regard to the National Assembly for Wales's scrutiny procedures, is that we can learn from one other. That was one of the reasons why I campaigned so hard for a yes vote in the referendum, as the hon. Gentleman and others did. I hope that we will look at the way in which the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales have worked, and I hope that they will look at our procedures as well. Perhaps we will learn something from one another.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I raise a point of House of Commons procedure, of which I have given the office of the Leader of the House notice? How are we going to monitor the absolutely burgeoning costs of the commitment in Iraq? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said recently that,
"For the current financial year, further sums have been drawn down from the special reserve. These are subject to scrutiny by HM Treasury and Parliament through the normal estimates process."—[Official Report, 30 October 2003; Vol. 412, c. 21WS.]
Does the Leader of the House think that the normal estimates process, which takes an endless amount of time, is really the way in which the House of Commons should be following this enormous expenditure that we have been landed with?
Mr. Hain: I agree that it is a considerable expenditure. The best assessment of war-fighting and peacekeeping costs over this year will be submitted formally to Parliament in the winter supplementary estimates, and we hope to inform Parliament of those costs shortly. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that we are involved in stabilising a bad security situation around Baghdad and the Tikrit area, although the south of the country is in much better shape, as is the north. I am sure that he will want to support that, whatever his views on the rights and wrongs of the war, because we want to provide a stable, democratic, peaceful future for the Iraqi people—something that they have not had for generations.
Mr. John Gummer: Would the Leader of the House, in a bipartisan spirit, look at an occurrence this morning when the Government announced in a written statement a plan to deal wholly differently with agreements made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—section 106 agreements? The fact that a Minister did not come to the House means that many people will suspect that this is the beginning of a new form of stealth taxation. I am sure that the Government would not wish that to be believed, and a sensible debate about his would demand that it should not be. Why did no Minister come to the
940
House to make this announcement, so that we could have a discussion about this major significant change in the way in which we handle our planning laws?
Mr. Hain: I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman raised that question, but he will also understand that the purpose of issuing written ministerial statements is to provide the House with more information, so that hon. Members like him can check their policy response. I assure him that there is no attempt to impose a stealth tax of any kind through this procedure. It is an attempt to modernise the planning system, which has been the objective all along.
Mr. David Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that early-day motion 1759 on House of Commons sitting arrangements has attracted 170 signatures from both sides of the House?
[That this House notes that the revised sitting hours and related arrangements have now been in place for 10 months; believes that there is now sufficient experience of the new arrangements to enable the House to judge what adjustments would be appropriate to enable the business of the House to be conducted more effectively; and calls for a review of the reforms.]
Will my right hon. Friend tell us when a review of these reforms will take place?
Mr. Hain: I am well aware of the number of signatures to that early-day motion. Obviously, there are strong feelings on this matter on both sides of the House, and sometimes bitter divisions of view on it. The House took a decision last year for the hours to be changed for the rest of this Parliament. In the consultations that I am having with many Members on both sides of the House, I want to keep continually under review exactly how we can ensure that some of the bottlenecks and teething problems in the new system can be resolved. I hope that we can take these matters forward soon, because there are a number of unsatisfactory aspects to the arrangements—for example, the very early sittings of some Committees, and the fact that the Chamber is locked earlier in the evening, which means that Members cannot bring dinner guests in to have a look when the House is not sitting. We should resolve issues such as those in a commonsense way, but there will have to be a review before the end of this Parliament to satisfy my hon. Friend's concerns and those of others.
Bob Russell: The Leader of the House referred to the strength of the economy. Does he accept, however, that hundreds of thousands of families are not benefiting from that strength? I am referring to the 35,000 households, for example, in the counties in the east of England with children who are living in accommodation that is not suitable for their needs. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on this, so that we can discuss the social consequences of 25 years of insufficient investment in new council houses?
Mr. Hain: The social consequences are very serious, as the hon. Gentleman says, and we are seeking to address this issue. It is important, however, that he acknowledge that the hard-won economic stability that we have created through a combination of low inflation, low interest rates and high employment has brought

941
prosperity to his region and his constituency, along with more jobs—including in the areas that contain those particular dwellings. Building on the back of that economic stability, greater investment in housing—and social housing—can be taken forward. We cannot do that without the economic stability that we have created.
Joan Ruddock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the EU Commission is to put to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health a proposal to approve a BT sweet corn called BT11, ahead of the rigorous regulations that are to be brought into force later this year? Doing that would end the moratorium in Europe on both genetically modified food and crops.
I have pressed my right hon. Friend in the past to have a debate on the Floor of the House on this issue, and I repeat today that things are happening in other places that are determining the possible future commercial planting of GM crops in this country. There is a need for a debate on the Floor of the House—notwithstanding the fact that I am grateful that there is to be a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall next week.
Mr. Hain: I was going to say to my hon. Friend that that debate was going to take place. The Minister will reply to it, and there will be an opportunity for all those issues to be raised and for her very proper concerns to be addressed. In no way should a series of, as it were, cascading developments be allowed to change policy in the way she is concerned about.
Mr. David Cameron: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me ask this question. May I raise with the Leader of the House an issue about which I am sure he is concerned, namely, access for disabled people to the House of Commons? Yesterday, three of my constituents from the Marlborough school in Woodstock, all of whom were wheelchair-bound, came to visit the House for Prime Minister's Questions. The Serjeant at Arms, the police and the Admissions Order Office were incredibly helpful but is the Leader of the House aware that wheelchair users who want to watch Prime Minister's Questions are confined to staying behind the stone facade at the back of the Gallery? Does he agree that we really ought to do more, in 2003, to ensure that disabled constituents can come to the House of Commons and get a proper view of the proceedings and be treated better? Frankly, despite all the best efforts of the authorities of the House—who were magnificent—the current arrangements are not good enough.
Mr. Hain: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, and that of other Members. The House authorities are trying to deal with it. Access to the House for members of the public is crucial, and we must take a much more reformist approach to it. That applies to people with disabilities, and to other members of the community. I am keen for us to have a visitors' centre and a proper walkway, perhaps leading from the Members' Entrance, so that visitors can queue under cover rather than being stuck out in the rain. They are, after all, citizens of this country. They are the people
942
who vote us into this place. We should treat them with more respect, whether they have disabilities—the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to that issue—or not.
Mrs. Gwyneth Danwoody: As my right hon. Friend will know, in 2004 the Government will introduce regulations on consultation in the workplace, and are encouraging people to meet those standards as soon as possible. Will he set a really good example in this regard? Will he not just consult all unions, workers and parliamentary staff in the Houses of Parliament, but at least consult MPs again about the unworkable, unhelpful and even rather debilitating changed sitting hours?
Mr. Hain: I am indeed consulting all Members—including my hon. Friend, who has spoken to me about these matters and will, I am sure, continue to do so. I want to secure consensus, because, as I have said, there are strong views on both sides. We want to ensure that this is a modern place reflecting modern life outside.
Mr. Forth: Why?
Mr. Hain: I think that if we are not a House of Commons that reflects life outside, we will cease to command the respect of people outside.
Mr. George Osborne: Were this week's articles by the Chancellor of the Exchequer part of the Government's euro roadshow campaign? To allay the fears of some of us who suspect that the roadshow does not exist, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many events he has attended since I last asked him this question? He boasted then that he had attended a meeting of the Welsh euro organising committee—a very exciting event. What other exciting events has he attended since?
Mr. Hain: Another meeting.
Mr. James Wray: Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to come to the House as soon as possible? Talk of interest rate increases always gives the jitters to first-time home buyers. We do not want to return to the 1980s under the last Government. I want the Chancellor to give an assurance that we will not see houses being repossessed, people being thrown out of their homes, and double-figure interest rates.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to question the Chancellor during next week's Treasury questions, but I can reassure him and his constituents that there is no prospect of a return to the sky-high interest rates and mortgage levels that we experienced under the Conservative Government. They dispossessed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, caused negative equity, and created the economic blight from which we, as a Labour Government, had to recover.
Our present interest rates are historically low for modern times, and the economic stability locked in by this Government will keep them low. Nevertheless, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want inflation to rise on the back of a strong economy, affecting his constituents and causing pressures on interest rates.

943
That is the issue with which the Bank of England has grappled, and I think that it made the right decision today.
John Barrett: The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that personal debt has increased by more than 50 per cent. during the Government's lifetime, and, with increasing interest rates expected, the problem is growing at a massive rate. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on debt in the United Kingdom in either this or the next Session?
Mr. Hain: The truth is that debt is much more easy to finance with the current low interest rates, and indeed with foreseeable rates. Under the Conservatives' high interest rates, debt levels were difficult to manage and many people were plunged into penury and poverty. The present economic stability, better job opportunities, high employment rates and overall strength of the economy mean that we are unlikely to experience the problem that worries the hon. Gentleman.
Linda Perham: As my right hon. Friend knows, at the beginning of the year the Central line was closed for three months. W ill he raise with our colleagues in the Department of Transport my constituents' concern about the long delays in the handling of compensation claims? Some have been able to obtain satisfaction only by making representations to me, and through my interventions.
Mr. Hain: I understand that £8 million has been paid so far in refunds. The Secretary of State for Transport will address my hon. Friend' s concern about the difficulty of securing compensation, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: The Leader of the House commented earlier on the state visit by President Bush. Might it be possible to raise with him the deep concern felt by many Members about the case of my fellow Scot Kenny Richey, currently on death row in Ohio? Those who are concerned include the 75 signatories to early-day motion 1593, which states
That this House notes the recent decision by the Home Office to grant Kenny Richey British citizenship? further notes that Mr Richey has spent 16 years on death row in the State of Ohio for the alleged murder of a two-year-old girl killed in a fire at her mother's apartment; notes that following the case having been heard at the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on 7th May a final decision is expected before August as to whether he should face execution; notes that important forensic and eyewitness evidence has come to light since the original verdict was reached which casts serious doubt on the safety of the conviction; notes, however, that under US law new evidence produced after a certain time does not provide grounds for a reversal; and therefore calls on the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister to make direct and robust representation to the state authorities, the Governor of Ohio and the President of the United States on behalf of Kenny Richey at the earliest opportunity, the eventual objective being to secure clemency.
944
As the right hon. Gentleman may know, there is substantial doubt about the safety of Kenny Richey's conviction. If his execution is allowed to go ahead without that doubt being addressed, there will be an enduring stain on the reputation of the United States for fairness and justice.
Mr. Hain: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point of view and to his request. As he will appreciate, this Government and this country oppose the death penalty, whether imposed within our own boundaries or anywhere else in the world.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: The lives of many of my constituents are being blighted by antisocial behaviour—aggressive begging, drunk and disorderly conduct and noisy neighbours—and also by criminal behaviour. Residential properties are being used for drug dealing and prostitution. I know that the Government have introduced some good legislation, and I find it enormously frustrating when local authorities and the police do not respond properly to it. May we have an early debate on their effectiveness or otherwise in responding to what is already on the statute book?
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend says, we have already introduced provisions to tackle antisocial behaviour, which is a scourge throughout the country, not least in constituencies such as mine. I share her frustration at the failure of police forces, local authorities and other agencies to implement those provisions. She will have an opportunity to address the problem when the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill returns from the House of Lords, although we are particularly frustrated at the way in which the House of Lords is itself frustrating the democratic wish of MPs and the elected Government to tackle the problem by trying to amend and disable the Bill. We shall have to do something about that when it comes back to the Commons.
David Burnside: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to come here and make a statement on why he is refusing to answer a number of sensitive questions? On 20 October I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State to outline the sanctions and powers of the international monitoring body to take action against parties such as Sinn Fein in relation to past terrorist activities. He refused to answer that, and also the question I tabled on 30 October asking him to make a statement on the arms and explosives held by all republican and loyalist paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. Yet this House voted to go to war on the basis of public information brought to it on weapons of mass destruction—arms and explosives that threatened us.
Mr. Hain: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regularly makes himself accountable to the House. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, he was at the Dispatch Box only a few weeks ago. He will have noted the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I must leave it at that.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a wide-ranging debate on the

945
Government's success in reducing economic and social divisions? In particular, will he ask Ministers to talk about the significant improvement in local authority funding, compared with the capping, cuts and poll tax that went before? We could also talk about the 1 million jobs that have been created under this Government, the successful introduction of the minimum wage, which it was forecast would lose 2 million jobs, the abolition of the incredibly discriminatory section 28, and the improved workers' rights, compared with the anti-worker attitude of the previous Administration. I am sure that the House could have an interesting and wide-ranging debate on those matters.
Mr. Hain: I am sure that we could, too, especially as the policy that my hon. Friend identified—opposition to a minimum wage—was led by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who projected that introducing it would lead to 2 million job losses. What have we seen instead? Some 1.6 million new jobs have been created while the minimum wage has been in force. On that policy, and on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's record on the poll tax, and of presiding over rising unemployment, we can have a debate.
Mr. David Heath: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the council tax is nearly, but not quite, as unpopular as that legacy of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the poll tax. When we hear the local authority settlement and the police authority settlement, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there is plenty of time for all Members who wish to do so to express their constituents' anger about having to pay more and more, without any benefit accruing to either local authorities or local services? Better still, will he introduce a debate on the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a fair alternative?
Mr. Hain: I would be very happy to have a debate on that policy, because the Liberal Democrats' policy of a local income tax could add up to 6p in the pound to income tax. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting, as the first part of his question implied, that levels of council tax are causing anything like the outcry caused by the poll tax?
Mr. Heath indicated assent.
Mr. Hain: In that case, is the hon. Gentleman advocating a return to the poll tax? I think we should be told.
Mr. Heath: I think I clearly said not.
Jim Sheridan: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the possible threat of even further industrial action in the fire service. Will he use his good offices to remind all those concerned of the dangerous and damaging consequences, not only for the general public but for the morale of firefighters themselves, should any action be taken? Will he use his influence to ensure that both parties will have every opportunity to reach a satisfactory conclusion before any ministerial intervention?
Mr. Hain: We are all concerned about the situation affecting the fire service, especially as, although a
946
generous pay settlement was agreed between the union and the authorities, including extra pay increases for modernisation, there now seems to be an impasse in some sections of the Fire Brigades Union, and an unwillingness to accept the quid pro quo of extra pay, over and above the general public sector settlement, in exchange for modernisation. That is the issue that needs to be resolved, round the table rather than on the picket line.
Kevin Brennan: May we have a debate about the rules governing the portrayal of parliamentarians in the House of Commons art collection? Is this not a timely moment to examine the way in which the rules governing, for example, the portrayal of former and current Leaders of the Opposition work, and perhaps commission some suitable modern art? Could we not ask Damian Hirst to produce a suitably realistic presentation of both the current and the former Leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Hain: I think that that would be a very good idea.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1868, about a chlorine emergency at Staveley in my constituency?
[That this House calls for a full investigation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the escape of chlorine at Staveley in Derbyshire from the chemical works of Rhodia Eco Services which led to workers being taken to hospital, children locked in schools, the blocking of a wide section of the town and residents having to follow emergency procedures for a considerable length of time with many being unable to return to their home? and requires action to be taken so that nothing similar will occur in the future.]
That took place on Monday at Rhodia Eco Services, and the escape of chlorine gas led to areas of Staveley being blocked off for several hours, with all the disruption that that caused in schools and elsewhere. May we have a written statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the role of the Health and Safety Executive in examining that episode? The statement could also cover the fact that, with the honourable exception of Peak FM, Radio Hallam and today's Derbyshire Times, the media carried little about the incident, because we happen to be at the edge of several different media areas. That major crisis should have been given the type of coverage that it was entitled to, which probably adds to the case that I am making for the Health and Safety Executive to take firm action to ensure that nothing like that happens in the town again.
Mr. Hain: I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State shares his concern about that serious incident, which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) have brought to the attention of the House. I am sure that she will want to take the matter up and make a written ministerial statement about it at some point.
Paul Flynn: Would not a debate on the unneeded surplus in the national insurance fund help the Government to find a practical solution to help the Allied Steel and Wire workers? At the end of the

947
financial year there will be a £30 billion surplus—£20 billion above the necessary contingency fund. The fund has already been used for extraneous purposes, such as compensating industry for green taxes, which cost £2 billion a year. Would it not be reasonable, just and practical to use a tiny part of that huge surplus to compensate the Allied Steel and Wire pensioners?
Mr. Hain: I know that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has looked closely at such matters, because he, like the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has received a delegation from the ASW workers, along with MPs who have, quite properly, been concerned about the situation. I shall ensure that he is aware of my hon. Friend's proposition.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: There has been a good deal of discussion in the House about the European Union constitution, but it has emerged only recently that it is to include an energy chapter. There is a great deal of concern that that could involve ceding competence over this country's oil and gas reserves to the European Union. May we have a debate on that important subject? Most Members are pleased that the Government have made taxation a red line issue, but many would wish to express the view that the licensing and control of our oil and gas reserves, which we have exercised since they were discovered in 1964, should also be a red line issue.
Mr. Hain: Indeed, I tabled an amendment on that matter on behalf of the Government in the proceedings of the Convention on the Future of Europe. It was one of the few unresolved issues on which we still need a proper outcome in the negotiations. I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is proceeding along the lines that he advocates. Licensing must indeed remain a matter to be supervised and directed as it is at present—and other countries, including the Netherlands, share our position, so I think I can reassure him that we shall get an outcome that he will find satisfactory.

Point of Order
1.18 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us whether you have received notification either from a Home Office Minister or from a Defence Minister of an intention to make a statement about the implications for homeland security of recent reports of incidents on the high seas that suggest that al-Qaeda-type organisations have it in mind to use large tankers or merchantmen as airliners were used to attack America? This is a very worrying development, and the House should have an opportunity to discuss it.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no notification, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be noted by the appropriate Minister.

Modernisation
[Relevant Document: The First Report from the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons, Session 2002–03, HC 1222, relating to Programming of Bills.]
1.20 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move,
That Orders A to I relating to the Programming of Bills, made by the House on 28th June 2001, and programme orders of the current session of Parliament relating to bills which are carried over to the next session, shall continue to have effect in the next session of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: With this it will he convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the Order relating to Deferred Divisions, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session Parliament.
Mr. Hain: We have two motions before us this afternoon. The first is a motion to renew for the next Session the Sessional Orders on the programming of Bills, which were first agreed by the House on 28 June 2001 and renewed for the current Session on 29 October last year. The second motion provides for the Sessional Orders on deferred Divisions to continue to have effect in the next Session.
As the Order Paper indicates, the first report of the Modernisation Committee, on the programming of Bills, is relevant to the debate. I am grateful to my colleagues on the Modernisation Committee for the positive way in which they engaged in producing this report. They have produced a constructive and thoughtful report on a complex and sometimes contentious matter. Notwithstanding the minority report submitted by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose sincere and principled objections to programming I acknowledge, in the end the Committee adopted the final report unanimously and without division.
The Committee's report sets out the context in which this afternoon's debate will, I hope, proceed. We accept that the programming of parliamentary business does not always work as well as we might wish, but properly enacted, programming is a positive development, allowing more effective scrutiny of legislation. The notion that the scrutiny of Bills should be subject to a parliamentary timetable has been a staple recommendation of parliamentary and independent reports for the past 20 years. In 1985, the Procedure Committee recommended that Bills be timetabled. In 1992, the Jopling Committee reiterated that proposal and in the same year the independent Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process regarded it as a central feature of any reforms to improve scrutiny. And in 1997, the Modernisation Committee's first report highlighted the importance of programming legislation, stating that other proposals for improving the legislative process—such as the scrutiny of draft Bills—could not be seen in isolation from the legislative timetable.
950
It is in this context that I hope we can debate this afternoon's motions. I urge all Members to recognise that, as paragraph 9 of the Modernisation Committee's report points out,
"there was never a 'golden age' of full scrutiny of all clauses of all bills; on the contrary, prior to the introduction of programming, there was deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the haphazard nature of scrutiny, which led to…considerable pressure from Members and others, over a number of years, for some form of timetabling of Government bills to be introduced; and…the procedures whereby bills might be programmed have been the subject of careful consideration in the past".
Of course, the effectiveness of any such system relies on the way in which it is implemented. The Modernisation Committee's report is candid about the pros and cons of the way in which the current provisions are enacted:
"When it works well, it is of benefit, a) to the Government, which is assured of getting its legislative programme; b) to the Opposition, which is assured of having adequate time to scrutinise those parts of a bill to which it attaches importance; and c) to the country as a whole, which benefits from better legislation."
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The reality is that if the report states boldly that it is important to understand that programming is here to stay, and then proceeds to discuss various reasons why it might not necessarily be the best thing, it is difficult to believe that it is quite as balanced a report as my right hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Hain: In the end, this is a matter for the House to decide, but my hon. Friend will agree that criticisms of the way in which programming has been handled and suggestions as to how it could be improved will have to be taken into account by the Government in years to come.
In keeping with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the report acknowledges that programming has not always worked well in practice. When things do not go according to plan,
"it can result in legislation receiving inadequate scrutiny leading to frustration on all sides as well as the increased danger that the House will pass defective legislation."
The essence of its success lies in the spirit of co-operation between those acting for the Government and those acting for the Opposition on a particular Bill—a point stressed in evidence given to the Committee by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Government believe that where the main parties engage positively in discussions on the programme, programming can, and does, work well.
The Government will consider carefully how they can respond to the Modernisation Committee's recommendations; we look to the Opposition to do likewise. For these reasons, the Modernisation Committee endorses the continued use of programme motions governed by the existing Sessional Orders. It recommends no change to the motions before us, reflecting the belief that any existing problems lie not with the Sessional Orders themselves, but with the way in which they are sometimes operated.

951
The second motion before us relates to the provisions for deferred Divisions. I am aware that when deferred Divisions were introduced, some Members had objections in principle to the separation of decision from debate, and were concerned that they would impact on attendance and the vigour of debate. I do not believe that those concerns have been borne out in practice; most Members find the deferral of Divisions in certain well-defined circumstances to be of great convenience.
I hope that this afternoon's debate can be conducted not in a spirit of partisanship, but with a wider concern for the quality of parliamentary scrutiny. Both motions should be debated in the context of the wider package of reforms implemented in the past few years—including pre-legislative scrutiny—which is designed to make the Commons more effective and efficient. For example, the massive increase in the number of draft Bills produced by Government in the past few years has undoubtedly enhanced the Commons' ability to scrutinise and shape legislation. I reaffirm our commitment to continuing to produce more Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny.
We could all point to individual events, taken in isolation, in which practice has not lived up to theory, and the Modernisation Committee's report highlights such concerns frankly and openly. However, solutions lie not in petty point-scoring, but in grown-up politics, and I urge Members to take a broader view, so that this debate can be conducted in that spirit. For my part, I will continue to listen to all proposals for reform that will strengthen and enhance parliamentary scrutiny. I commend the motions to the House.
1.26 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: I disagree with almost everything that the Leader of the House has just said, but I want to make it clear from the start—lest anyone listening to today's debate or reading the subsequent Hansard account be under any illusion—that this ghastly, so-called Modernisation Committee is, and has been, simply a vehicle through which a Government with a very large majority can reduce the role of the House of Commons in properly scrutinising legislation. That is what it has been and has become. The Modernisation Committee is not some misty-eyed, impartial philosophical guardian of the rights of the House of Common; it is a Committee of the House with a very large Government majority, chaired by a Cabinet Minister. Although it is deemed to be a Select Committee, it is a vehicle for the wish of the Government. It saddens me that this Government, to whom the electorate gave an enormous majority in 1997 and 2001, have seen fit to abuse that majority by effectively reducing the House of Commons' role in a number of ways.
Because we are considering two specific motions and a Modernisation Committee report, we are examining only two ways in which the role of the House of Commons has been altered—not irrevocably but for the time being, a point to which I shall return. For my modest contribution to today's debate, I thought that I could do no better than to pick out some items in the report with which I agree, and some with which I disagree. To my surprise, there are one or two items with which I do indeed agree, but I disagree with most of them.
952
Let us start with paragraph 11(a), which states:
"The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in reasonable time (provided that it can obtain the approval of the House)."
In a sense, that sums up rather well this Government's attitude. They begin by stating that the relationship between the Government of the day and the House of Commons should be such that the former must get their legislation through "in reasonable time". By way of a footnote, one has to ask the interesting question of whether they mean through Parliament, or through the House of Commons. Of course, there is a very important distinction to be made here. Although the Government have reduced to a rather pathetic shadow of its former self the House of Commons' role in holding them to account, happily, the House of Lords is still very much alive and kicking. These days, the House of Lords does most of the work in holding the Government to account. It sits longer and more often—
Mr. Hain: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman to read the next sub-paragraph? He read out paragraph 11(a)—that the
"Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation"—
but not the next sub-paragraph, which states:
"The Opposition in particular, and Members in general must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance."
Furthermore, paragraph 12(c) states:
"All parts of a bill must be properly considered."
The truth is that, as a result of the reforms that we have introduced, scrutiny in the House is now more effective than ever before.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that, which is the crux of the debate. What he has just said is an absurd proposition, to which we shall return in more detail in a few moments.
I want to focus the House's attention on the central proposition. What worries me is the Government's assumption that, having been given a large majority by the electorate, they have the right to legislate to an unlimited extent, at will, regardless of the wishes of the House of Commons. The Government believe that their role is to alter our procedures so that they can get their legislation through with the minimum of inconvenience and fuss. That is the central proposition, to which I take great exception.
I have spent 20 years in this place, first through the 1980s as a Government Back Bencher and subsequently as a Minister. Even with the large majority that we enjoyed in 1983, we did not fiddle with the procedures of the House in order to make life easier or reduce the opportunities available to the Opposition. As a Back Bencher and then a Minister, I spent many hours in Committee allowing the Opposition to determine the amount of time a Committee devoted to a particular Bill. We brought in a guillotine or timetable motion only when the Government viewed the time period as excessive—a point to which I shall return in a few moments. The key point is the presumption that Ministers alone decide how much time the House and

953
Standing Committees will take to consider legislation. That is what has undermined the role that Members of Parliament, particularly the Opposition, can play.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): Would the right hon. Gentleman prefer the old practice of guillotining, which he and other Conservative Ministers exercised and which was exclusively at the discretion of the Executive, to timetabling, which the House, through its Programming Sub-Committee, is allowed under the current arrangements?
Mr. Forth: The answer is yes. An informative table is appended to the excellent minority report of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I was hoping that someone would allow me to raise this matter and the Deputy Leader of the House has provided me with an opportunity to do so.
I draw the House's attention to page 31 of the report, which highlights the Education Bill of the 1992–93 Session. It had 255 clauses and 17 schedules, and the date of the allocation of time motion was 15 December 1992. The time allowed under that motion required the Standing Committee to report by 9 February 1993, but 18 subsequent sittings were allowed after the motion had been introduced. That is important for several reasons—not only because of the dedication and excellence of the Minister in charge of the Bill at the time, whose name for the moment escapes me. If pressed, I am sure that I could remember it. I was told at the time that it was the biggest Education Bill that had ever been brought before the House.
In the 1980s and on to the 1990s, it was standard practice to allow up to 150 hours in Committee—occasionally, at the discretion of the Opposition, even up to 200—before the Government took the view that it was necessary to introduce a guillotine. That is why my reply to the Deputy Leader of the House is that I prefer the earlier approach. What often happened was that the then Opposition, now the Government, would expend considerable time—sometimes two or three days—debating the sittings motion. Hon. Members who had the privilege of being in the House at the time will recall that that was the Opposition's choice; that was how they chose to spend their time in Committee—I have no complaints about that. We then allowed them to spend weeks and months in Committee—again at their discretion—to debate the legislation. Only after a very long lapse of time would the Government, with some reluctance, introduce a guillotine motion.
Yes, I preferred that approach. Under the current system, even before a Committee has embarked on its work, the Government decide how much time it will take and then often introduce what we call "knives".
Mr. David Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman is being selective in his choice of Bills. Does he recall, for example, the Transport Bill 1985? Because of the guillotine imposed by Conservative Ministers at the time, many important clauses and schedules—particularly on pensions—were never debated at all. Is not the present timetabling method much better and fairer than the guillotine?
Mr. Forth: The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is no. He and I could wander together down memory lane,
954
and I would be happy to do so. However, if we were to examine the entrails of that Bill and look into the amount of time taken by the then Opposition in the Standing Committee and what particular issues were discussed, I suspect that it would considerably weaken the hon. Gentleman's point. At the moment I cannot remember the Bill in detail, but I would not mind betting that he and his hon. Friends probably spent the first sitting or two debating the timetable motion—no doubt with reference to grandmothers, tea cakes, holidays, the weather and all the other subjects so much beloved by the Opposition at the time.
Mr. Marshall: I have to agree in part with the right hon. Gentleman's point. That may have been true of some hon. Members, but others on our side of the House did not like that method of operation because it prevented us from getting to the meat of the Bill. The present timetabling process is, I believe, fairer.
Mr. Forth: That should have been a matter for the hon. Gentleman to sort out with his hon. Friends. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for AldridgeBrownhills—his work has brought this problem out—to make the point more forcibly than I could that any attempt to argue that we are getting more effective scrutiny of Bills under the present system of arbitrary timetabling before a Committee even embarks on its work than under the old system cannot be sustained. The truth is that, under the current system, very substantial parts of large and important Bills are not being addressed by the Standing Committees at all because of the arbitrary nature of the guillotining that takes place, as I have said, before the Committee starts its work. I cannot make the point often enough that under the old system the Committee was allowed to start its deliberations and it was the Opposition—back then, as now, Government Back Benchers said very little—who were allowed to decide which clauses were debated and at what rate of progress. I cannot help it if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and his hon. Friends fell out over it. I cannot help it if the hon. Gentleman sat there mute, waiting for his favourite clause to come up, while his hon. Friends were occupying endless time talking about irrelevancies. That is the hon. Gentleman's problem. If he and his hon. Friends wasted time, that is not for me to explain.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: One crucial difference is that under the old arrangements to which my right hon. Friend refers, the Opposition had at least an opportunity to present arguments as to why a guillotine might have been inappropriate. We had a three-hour debate on the guillotine. If my right hon. Friend looks through the list in the report, he will see that the guillotine was often not applied until a breakdown of business in the Committee took place.
Mr. Forth: That is indeed the case and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out. A subsidiary but important matter is how far one had the opportunity to debate the guillotining in itself—an opportunity that the Government have all but done away with. That was an important part of the procedure at the time, which is sadly no longer the case.

955
Let us move on to paragraph 13 of the report, which states:
"The Government will inevitably get its legislation"—
and then generously adds,
"subject to the agreement of the House."
I do not believe that there should be any inevitability about the Government getting its legislation at all. Funnily enough, although we now find ourselves at the end of the Session, much legislation is still being dealt with in another place. We in the House of Commons are marking time. Sadly, it is becoming embarrassingly obvious that there is very little substantive business for us to do, while the House of Lords is doing the real business of holding the Government to account.
For the Government or the Committee—they are the same thing, effectively—to have the gall and the impudence to say that the Government will inevitably get their legislation gives the game away and shows the Government's attitude to the parliamentary process. I hope that the Government will not inevitably get their legislation, if only because they are trying to stuff too much legislation through the parliamentary process. They can easily get their legislation through the House of Commons because of the mechanism that we are discussing—the programming of Bills—but happily still in the House of Lords, where the Government do not have a majority and cannot control the timetable, they will not inevitably get their legislation. Indeed, they may have to give up some of it—parts of Bills or Bills in their entirety. So even that statement, which gives the lie to the Government's attitude to the parliamentary process, happily is not true.
Mr. Woolas: The picture painted by the right hon. Gentleman suggests to the public and to the House that the Government are not allowing time. Will he consider two comparative statistics? In the 1991–92 Session, the House considered 17 Bills, to which 295 hours were devoted in Standing Committee. Ten years later, in the 2000–01 Session, again the House considered 17 Bills, which took up 301 hours in Standing Committee. Do those statistics not show that what the right hon. Gentleman is arguing is simply not true?
Mr. Forth: No, of course not. That shows the superficial nature of the Minister's understanding of the way the House works. Without looking at the Bills in great detail—their size, complexity and how controversial or otherwise they—are one cannot make a judgment. The raw figures tell us nothing, but my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will tell us something.
Mr. Shepherd: Yes. We must remember that the first period cited by the Minister was the run-up to the 1992 general election, and in the arrangements between the Whips Offices—the "usual channels", as they were called a—huge number of deals were done to expedite business to clear the decks for the general election that was to follow.
Mr. Forth: Which I personally regret. I would much rather the Opposition of the day had prevented that
956
process from happening, regardless who was in government. It is true that when we were in government, we were allowed to get away with murder by slack opposition, which I hope will not happen again.
I move on to paragraph 19, in which there is something that I agree with. There is not much that I agree with in the report, but in fairness I thought I had better identify one or two paragraphs with which I could agree. Paragraph 19 states:
"There is a danger that, where programme orders specify unnecessarily short timetables, or where time is badly allocated within the overall limits set out in the original programme order, programming will be seen as only a convenience for the Government, allowing it to get legislation through the House in a hurry."
I agree. That is the case. When I comment on the deferred Divisions issue, I shall repeat the word that the Leader of the House let slip: convenience. That is so much the hallmark of the attitude of the Government and Ministers to the House. We are now all about convenience—convenience for the Government, convenience for Members of Parliament—and it has become the present Government's watchword. Nothing must be done that is inconvenient to the Government or to Members of Parliament. Hence the programming of Standing Committees, the change of hours and so many other measures that the Government have introduced, all of which are, in my view, detrimental to the effective role of the House and the Opposition in dealing with the Government and their proposed legislation.
Paragraph 25 goes on to state:
"The purpose of programming is to enhance the House's scrutiny of bills, not to curtail legitimate debate."
How on earth a Committee, even one with a Government majority and even one chaired by a Cabinet Minister, can have the impertinence to say that escapes me. The entire purpose of programming is precisely to curtail debate and to facilitate the Government's legislation.
I say that with some confidence because it is half hinted at, or half admitted, in the report that the Government believe that at the time of Second Reading—the in-principle debate on a Bill—they can foretell how much time a Standing Committee will require to consider a Bill. That indicates that they have no wish to allow the Committee to deliberate properly or even to decide how much time it should take. Before the process even starts, the Government say, "We think the Bill should take three weeks." How can they possibly know that about Bills with a large number of clauses and schedules and many complexities?
Until the Standing Committee is constituted and the legitimate outside interest groups make their input to the process, the Government cannot know how long proper scrutiny or consideration of a Bill will take. Yet the whole philosophy of programming set out in the report and in the motions before us rest on that very assumption. It is that to which I take such exception.
Paragraph 25 goes on to claim that the process is of benefit
"to the Opposition, which is assured of having adequate time".
The Opposition are not assured of anything of the kind, for the reasons that I have just given. Quite the opposite—the Opposition are denied the time that they may wish to have to scrutinise a Bill.

957
Then we come to the phrase in paragraph 28 that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) picked up in her intervention:
"It is important for all sides to recognise that programming is here to stay".
What arrogance. What impertinence on the part of the Government. How can they say that or know that? I do not believe that programming is here to stay. They might have said, "We believe that programming is here for as long as we are in government and prepared to hold the House of Commons under our jackboot." That might have been accurate, but as soon as we are in government, I hope that programming will not be here to stay.
I hope I can give an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that we would seek to reverse that. In any case, in a strict parliamentary sense, that statement is not and cannot be true, because each Parliament, happily, decides its own arrangements for procedures and Standing Orders. The assertion in paragraph 28 is invalid and untrue.
In paragraph 30 the report deals with timing and makes the valid comment that
"points raised during the second reading debate may be taken into account when decisions are taken about how to allocate time to each part of the bill."
In that respect, I acknowledge that a small concession and a little progress has been made. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) tells me that it was his amendment. I congratulate him on persuading the Committee at least of that. I remain to be convinced. I should like to think that that will happen, I hope it will, but I shall believe it when I see it. If the Government are prepared to make that small concession, I hope that they will wait a decent interval after the Second Reading debate to get some sense of what the House, various Members and outside interest groups feel, and make some adjustment to the time that a Bill spends in Standing Committee. I should like to think that that would be a small step in the right direction, but I am not sure that it will happen.
I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills to tell the House the thrust of his excellent minority report. Suffice to say that I agree with the point that he made and the direction in which he wanted to take the Committee, and I regret that the Committee did not feel that it could support his minority report.
It should be obvious by now that I shall not vote for the motions. They seek to apply to future Sessions of Parliament arrangements that have turned out to be completely unsatisfactory. I regret that that is the attitude of Ministers and the Government to our parliamentary proceedings. If one wanted to see any proof of how easy life has been made for the Government, one has only to look at the fact that the Leader of the House can now predict the calendar for an entire year ahead.
One has only to look at the reduced number of sittings. The Leader of the House keeps telling us, because it is what his script tells him, that the House is not sitting fewer days or hours than it did. That is not so. We used to sit on Fridays, regularly and routinely. Fridays have all gone except, happily, for the 13 private Member's Bill Fridays, to which I look forward so much
958
and in which I seek to participate as much as possible. Sadly, the other Fridays during which the House used to sit have all disappeared. Where did they go? They have all gone, to be replaced by nothing at all, as far as I can tell.
Mr. Hain: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have introduced debates in Westminster Hall, which—[Interruption.] He shrugs in scorn, but there is greater opportunity for Members to raise issues and subject Ministers to scrutiny and accountability in Westminster Hall, and many of his Back Benchers take advantage of that. We must consider the changes on Friday and in other respects as part of a rounded whole. On scrutiny, the Liaison Committee now periodically holds the Prime Minister to account. That never happened before, and is another move forward in parliamentary scrutiny under this Government. With regard to Fridays, would Conservative Back Benchers and some of his Front Benchers prefer to give up their constituency Fridays and come back to the House on Friday mornings at his request?
Mr. Forth: I would hope that all hon. Members would rather be doing their duties at Westminster if that opportunity were given to them. It is a matter for individual decision, but I would always give priority to my duties at Westminster and I hope that that would be the case for all other Hon. Members of Parliament.
Mrs. Dunwoody: We used to have on Fridays debates that were not simply the equivalent of Adjournment debates. We had the power to table proposals on which a vote could be held. It was because of that power that the Abortion Act 1967 went ahead and the law on homosexual behaviour changed. Back Benchers could decide whether they approved or disapproved of various controversial matters, but they do not have that power today and it is important that we make that clear.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Yes, we did have legislative Fridays—if I may put it like that—and to talk about the silly sideshow that is Westminster Hall is not good enough. Fortunately, we cannot legislate in Westminster Hall and, given the gold-plated undertaking by a former Leader of the House that we will never legislate in Westminster Hall, it can be no substitute for proper sittings of the House in this Chamber on a Friday. I do not accept that argument.
As for the claim that the Prime Minister now appears before the Liaison Committee, that is all very well for the great and the grand of the House, but what about us ordinary punters who might want to have a chance to question the Prime Minister occasionally? I shall have a further point to make about the Prime Minister when I discuss deferred Divisions, which are one of the biggest insults to the House that we have seen in my memory. It was always thought, certainly by those outside the House, that there was a direct link between a debate taking place and a vote taking place. It was assumed that Members of Parliament would be in the Chamber, or at least would have the opportunity to be in the Chamber, to listen to a debate and then to vote on it. If there were consequential Divisions, that would certainly have to be the case. Now we have the insult of deferred Divisions. If a debate comes on inconveniently late, which may now

959
mean after 7 pm, it appears that it would be an imposition on Members to expect them to tarry in the House to cast their vote. Therefore, the debate may take place, but everyone except those taking part may leave the premises to return several days later and cast their vote on the issue on a ballot paper. That is not what I thought the House of Commons was about when I first arrived here.
The position is even worse than I have described so far. The deferred votes take place—surprise, surprise—just at the time when the Prime Minister makes one of his rare, once-a-week visits to the House of Commons, so that he may take part in the balloted Divisions and slightly boost his voting record, which is dismal at best. We have the double whammy of Members being able to vote on a debate that they did not attend and for which they were not even in the building, and the Prime Minister coming along to vote on something of which he was blissfully unaware. That is the height of absurdity and the essence of the Government's attitude to the House of Commons and its proceedings. Debates are an irrelevance—apparently—and now so are votes.
I hope that the business of deferred decisions turns out to be an anomaly that we get rid of as soon as we are in a position to do so. I hope that it does not fall into the category of changes that the report described as here for ever. Nothing in this House—at least so far—is for ever, and successive Parliaments review such matters. I hope that that turns out to be the case in this instance. I deprecate the appearance of these matters on the Order Paper today. I shall oppose them and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to do so, too.
1.54 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Parliaments are only as effective as their Members, and how they organise their affairs is fundamental to the way in which they present themselves to the general public. At present, there is much debate about the inability of parliamentarians to engender support in the population and to attract young people to vote and take part in political life. There is a direct connection between that and the way in which Parliaments behave.
The Leader of the House was kind enough to suggest that we view the changes that we are debating today in terms of the overall package. He suggested that we should look not only at this report, but at all the other changes that have been made. That what I intend to do, from the strong belief that we are taking the wrong direction. The report contains many bland and unexceptional comments. It says that the Opposition should have the right to have their views heard, that the Government should have enough time for their business, that we should have sufficient time to scrutinise Bills and that, under no circumstances, should the Government table hundreds of amendments at a late stage in a Bill's progress. It is not difficult to agree with all those sentiments. We all want a Parliament that has sufficient time to scrutinise Bills. It also needs to understand the implications of legislation but, increasingly, that is not the case.
We must consider the effect of the changes that have taken place. The hours of sitting have changed massively and that directly affects the times at which we
960
see our constituents, the amount of work that we can do, the work of Select Committees and access to the House for those outside. For example, school parties from my constituency, which is not close to the House of Commons, cannot go round the House as they once could. The work of Select Committees has been affected. Because everything is concentrated into two days in the middle of the week, Select Committees are constantly interrupted by Divisions. A Select Committee may be questioning someone on issues of considerable importance to the general public, such as railway or air services, but it must constantly suspend its sitting for Divisions.
Barbara Follett: My hon. Friend has much experience in the House—far more than I have—but I disagree with her. Our work is not concentrated into two days. We sit Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. People choose to concentrate Committee sittings into Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but Select Committees are free to meet on Mondays or Thursdays.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am happy to meet on any day of the week that my Committee members choose, but we have already altered the times of our Committee sittings more than once and it has no effect because the Government choose to concentrate the work of the House into two days, leaving a large amount of space at either end of the week.
The reality is that we have not improved scrutiny. Time after time, the Government table amendments on Third Reading—and even after a Bill has been to the other place and returned. We are frequently told that an issue raised in a Bill is important but that it was not discussed in Committee because of the timetable motion. It is fashionable to claim—as the report does—that there was never a golden age in which legislation was properly scrutinised. That was the line taken by the previous Leader of the House, who of course did not himself take a great part in any of the boring chores of looking carefully at legislation.
The way we work has changed, and for the worse. I do not say that the House of Commons should never alter its procedures. It has done so consistently ever since I came here and it has done so for 300 to 400 years without any obvious inability to adjust to the problems of the time. However, the reality is that changes such as deferred voting, timetabling for pieces of legislation or concentrating debates within controlled hours do not improve the quality of Bills or debates. That is a matter of considerable concern. Back Benchers have lost, by a salami-slicing technique, a number of their original powers to bring forward important political matters, and to get them voted on.
It is increasingly clear that people outside the House have no respect for Members of Parliament. Why should they? We do not have time to deal with those aspects of life that concern them.
I am easy to dismiss, as I am very old in relation to this modernising Government and can be regarded as a sort of female Methuselah. However, I have learned one thing since I came to the House—that democracy works only when electors feel that they can identify with what

961
is being done in their name in writing laws or reflecting their views about political problems. They do not want Parliament to be a sort of factory that creates many pages of legislation that they neither see nor understand. They want Parliament to deal with matters that are important to them.
The Government do much that is good. Why are they so insecure that they have to rubbish parliamentary procedures that developed out of people's needs and understanding over a long period? The Government have all the right instincts, so why are they so insecure in their relationship with the House that they cannot give us the procedures that would allow debate to be as open, lengthy—and, yes, boring—as it used to be?
For some people, modernisation equals streamlining, the curtailment of debate and of the powers of the awkward squad, and the restriction of the general role of Back Benchers. Long live the role of the awkward squad! The Labour party was created by, and takes its sustenance from, those who constitute the awkward squad. In some areas, they are called democrats, in others Labour Members of Parliament. We must not imagine that the bland clichés of the report are a true reflection of the dangers that we face. The report does not even debate those dangers.
I am depressed, upset and frightened that the Government constantly want to change the way that Parliament works. If they believe that the changes improve matters, they are mistaken and incompetently ignorant. I do not want to accept that of my Government. Somehow or other, we have lost sight of what Parliaments do. Parliaments discuss, legislate and debate. They often cause the Executive considerable difficulty. Heaven help us if we lose sight of that.
2.4 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), but I am at one with her eloquent and heartfelt plea for a more effective House of Commons.
I am a permanent member of the awkward squad. Some say that Liberal Democrats always will be, but that may not be true. However, the central proposition of the speech by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich—that what is before us this afternoon is bland and unexceptional—is true. Some of the Modernisation Committee's members, from all parties, tried to make the report much less bland. We wanted to amend it to make it more robust and to change the Sessional Orders to make the present provisions work better. Unfortunately, we found ourselves up against a brick wall.
The hon. Lady knows how Select Committees work and has encountered the same wall many times. It is betraying no secrets to say that that brick wall is the Government Whips Office. I wanted to make some practical proposals to improve matters, as I do not think that the present provisions are practical or sustainable in the long run.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made one very important statement—that the previous Conservative Government, of whom he was a member, were allowed to get away with murder.
962
I am grateful to him for putting that statement on the record. If he is reappointed to his current role, I wonder whether he will be allowed to live that down.
I have great regard for the right hon. Gentleman, and enjoy what he says about how this place works. I have some sympathy with some of the concerns that he has expressed, both in government and in opposition. However, he has called the Modernisation Committee "ghastly", but he is totally ignorant of the Committee's work. Some Conservative Members in the Chamber now have made a positive contribution to the discussions in that Committee, and in the last Parliament, Sir Peter Emery was a driving force in trying to improve the workings of the House. It is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to describe everyone as ghastly, just because he is in one of his gothic moods. If he intends to follow the example of the former leader of the Conservative party and write novels, I hope that he will write something that has its feet on the ground, and not the horror stories to frighten the children that he always tries on in the House.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am nervous about the distinction made by the hon. Gentleman between Modernisation Committee members and the excellent, barnstorming speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Conservative Members have more in common with my right hon. Friend than with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to dissociate the views of Conservative members of the Committee from much of what my right hon. Friend set out in his speech.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is a welcome addition to the Committee, but he did not have the opportunity, as I did, to listen to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) in the previous Parliament, when he made an important contribution to the Committee's work. That contribution can be seen in several reports. Nor has the hon. Gentleman yet had a full opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who has made a positive contribution to our discussions over a long period. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are not all ghastly, as claimed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
I hope that everyone who has witnessed how the changes have operated in recent years will accept two truths—that programming does not work, even in the eyes of people who, like me, have some sympathy with the objectives, and that the previous arrangements of a so-called golden age are a complete will o'the wisp. They never worked particularly well, for a variety of reasons but not least because different parties have different interests. That is why it is important to ensure that the terms of trade—an expression that the right hon. Member for North -West Hampshire used to use in the Committee—are reasonably well balanced, so that we all can make an intelligent contribution to improving legislation.
I hope that all hon. Members participating in this debate have read the full report of the Select Committee, including the contribution that comes in the form of an alternative report by the hon. Member for Aldridge-

963
Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). I pay tribute to him, and we are indebted to him for extracting the data about how this business has been handled in the past.
When people read the report, I hope that they will not assume that we are satisfied with the present arrangements, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, or that the Committee does not have a real wish to improve matters. We are currently frustrated, but the issue will not go away.
Paragraph 11, to which reference has been made from both the other Front Benches, describes a modest objective: ensuring that different interests in the House are met by the way in which we operate. However, paragraph 25 is the most important one and, if hon. Members have a copy of the report, perhaps they could take this opportunity quickly to read it. It notes that we should be looking for a way of operating that gives the Government a reasonable chance to get their legislative programme through. "Reasonable" is the important word. Some years ago when a colleague and I found ourselves in the relevant Lobby, we counted up the inches of statute that the House had passed from the beginning of the 16th century to 1950. At that moment, it was the same length as the section showing the statutes passed by the House since 1950.
In this place, we try to consume a huge amount of extremely detailed legislation and we frequently give ourselves legislative indigestion. A previous Modernisation Committee report recommended that other Select Committees should play a larger role in pre-legislative scrutiny. In due course, I hope that that would improve the situation but hon. Members will agree that such work would not be the first choice for Members of Select Committees; they enjoy paying fact-finding visits to other parts of the world much more than scrutinising proposed legislation. I fear that we all tend to have that fault.
Paragraph 25 also states that Opposition parties have a prime responsibility to identify which parts of a Bill require particular scrutiny. That lays a great responsibility on us. Under the previous arrangements, a great deal of time was taken up in discussion of sittings motions, which neither did justice to the importance of the issues that were to follow nor gave Parliament a good reputation. The most important thing is that we try to ensure that the product of this place is better. We should be in a win-win-win situation. Clearly, we are not at present, but that should be our objective. The Government should be more confident that legislation will be reasonably assessed and scrutinised and that it will be done in time, and the Opposition should have much more influence over the way in which that detailed work is undertaken. At the end of the day, however, it is vital that we pass better legislation.
I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that we are trying to do far too much. If devolution does nothing else, I hope that eventually it will take away from this place some of the issues that do not need to be dealt with here. The previous Prime Minister, Mr. John Major, had the misfortune to invent a rather ugly word—subsidiarity—
964
but the principle was right: decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the people whom they affect. The House still has to find a mechanism for achieving that.
Mr. Forth: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Government's desire hitherto to set an end date for a Standing Committee before it has even started puts an artificial onus on all the Committee's members, individually and collectively, and on all the legitimate outside interest groups to compromise their work to fit into the artificiality of those time constraints? Does he agree that it should be the other way around? Before that end date is even thought about, the members of the Committee and the interest groups should wait until they are well into their deliberations so that they can see how much time is reasonably required for them to carry out their work.
Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman has leapt ahead of my argument. I shall come back to his point, with which I have some sympathy, as I have some practical suggestions that may assist the process. May I modestly suggest that he read the short memorandum that I sent to the Committee, which is in the appendix? To some extent, it meets his point.
I want to refer to another item in the appendix—the memorandum from the Chairman of Ways and Means. He is in a unique position because he can sense how things are operating. As Chairman of the Chairmen's Panel, he receives feedback from the Committees, he regularly takes the Chair in this place and, of course, he has long experience as a Member. I quote in full one of the statements in his memorandum:
"In summary I suggested that the more comprehensive introduction of programming had not led to bills being scrutinised more thoroughly or completely than hitherto; that programming was capable of being used constructively; that, short of any more fundamental approach, detailed programming should not be left in the hands of the usual channels; and that in effect all that had been achieved thus far was legislation in a hurry."
That is a formidable critique from a uniquely informed and objective standpoint. All members of the Committee, whatever their party, took seriously that important set of views. The Chairman of Ways and Means spelled out—as he has done on previous Occasions—several practical suggestions for the Committee.
The more fundamental approach to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in his memorandum would obviously involve some form of independent legislative business committee, answerable to the whole House. That will not be easy to achieve—there is so much history to deal with in this place—but we should not ignore the fact that most deliberative assemblies that are similar to ours, including the Holyrood Parliament, which serves the Scottish people, are much more open and transparent, enabling all Members of all parties to make their contribution.
This afternoon, we should give notice that the report is not the end of the story. The Whips—the usual channels—are, in effect, on probation; unless they can help us to improve the situation the reform will have to be much more radical than is currently being suggested. The report and the debate are putting down a marker that if the system does not improve and we do not achieve better results all round for everybody, especially

965
in the quality of the legislation that we pass, the Whips' present decisive role in organising the legislative business of the House will have to be modified.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has repeatedly emphasised, in his evidence to the Committee and on previous occasions, that all parties have responsibility for finding ways to make that process work better, for the benefit of our constituents, for the better delivery of a better-quality product and for the reputation of Parliament. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is right. The general public do not merely feel that we are rather irrelevant; people who come up against the detail of legislation—whether in business, trade unions or whatever—often see only too clearly the inadequacy of the consideration that we give in this place. Whether the legislation is on dangerous dogs or the Child Support Agency, the inadequacy of our work in this place is, all too often, only too apparent to the people who are directly affected by it.
A steamrolling Executive may occasionally be faced by an Opposition that is wholly obsessed with oppositionitis, but the two feed off each other; they are not completely independent. They create equal and opposite alternatives.
Taking a lead from the comments of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I want to make some constructive suggestions. In that context, I have served on a Standing Committee in this Parliament and have frequently done so in the past, but I am not sure how recently the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has served on a Committee considering a Bill. Has he been involved in a Bill that has been the subject of a programme carefully decided by the Programming Sub-Committee? That brings me back to my memorandum, in which I pointed out that it is critical that the Members who are to do the job of scrutinising Bills should take a primary role in deciding how the job should be done. It is absurd that we used to hold three-hour debates in the Chamber on how to split up the time for a Bill. The Members who contributed to such debates were, almost invariably, not going to be members of the Committee. They set the terms of reference but they were not going to do the job.
Surely a basic and sensible approach is to try to ensure that the people who are most concerned should be the ones who decide about the job. Similarly, at present, the Whips discuss how to carve up the programme before the Committee is even appointed. As my unanimously agreed amendment to the report suggests, the operative moment for deciding when such discussions should start is when the Committee is appointed, when the names come before the House for notification—rather than approval, in normal circumstances. That is the moment and those are the people who should be involved in the discussions, not least because that is the moment when Back Benchers can exert some influence. Up to then, only the Front Benchers will know which are the important issues. I find it extraordinary that anyone should hanker after those three-hour debates during which, by their very nature, the non-participants in the detailed work used to make all the running.
Similarly, it is critical that, when debating a Bill on Report in the Chamber, those hon. Members who have served on the Committee should have the first right to discuss, decide and influence the total amount of time used and how it should be used. No doubt, those hon. Members will be influenced by other hon. Members who
966
may feel that the Committee has ignored an issue, but at least those who have served on the Committee will be fully acquainted with the important issues and which issues were not properly discussed.
The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and I also agree that, when the Chairman of a Standing Committee, who is independent and above the partisan views of the members of the Committee, feels that whole chunks of the Bill—perhaps new clauses, new schedules and completely new issues—have not been discussed properly, the very basic requirement of the House should be that we have a report on Report. We tried to promote that suggestion in the Modernisation Committee. It is an absurd anomaly that Report includes no report whatsoever from the Committee.
Mrs. Dunwoody: How would the hon. Gentleman deal with the situation where the Government themselves table 300 or 400 amendments that totally change not only the context, but frequently the content of a Bill?
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for asking that—it was almost a planted question—because I addressed the issue in a suggestion that I made to the Modernisation Committee. In those circumstances, the responsibility lies with the Chairman, who is independent, to tell that Standing Committee that such work cannot be undertaken in the current framework. If the Programming Sub-Committee could not agree on a change to the programme motion and it were patently impossible to allow appropriate time, even with additional sittings. it would be the responsibility of that Chairman to return to the House to seek an amendment of the out date. I do not see any other way—any other safety valve—for a Committee to try to do the job properly if it is constrained in such a way.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that would put enormous and unacceptable pressure on those on the Chairmen's Panel, who are there to carry out the correct conduct of the proceedings on Bills, not to take a strong political position? That would put not only enormous pressure on them, but demand that the Speaker's role changed because their logical line of information would be the Speaker, who would then be required to take what, in effect, would be a clearly political position.
Mr. Tyler: I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but some members of the Chairmen's Panel who have addressed this issue feel that, if they had the support of their Committee in thinking that its job was impossible, they could undertake precisely that role in reporting back to the House. If the Committee were simply divided on party lines and Government Back Benchers simply went along with their party line, well, more fool they, because they would be falling into precisely the trap that the hon. Lady referred to a few minutes ago.
Mr. David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share his view that we should try to make Report involve a proper report back from the Committee. Does he think that that would be helpful because those hon. Members who are interested in the

967
Bill but did not serve on the Committee would benefit from such a report? An element of the report—this relates to what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said—would cover what Government amendments were introduced and what weight they had. Is it not the case that, with Bills such as the Criminal Justice Bill, very important amendments are made in Committee of which other hon. Members are not fully aware?
Mr. Tyler: I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. More transparency is needed. For example, a report about the fact that issues arose late in Committee, were not debated and went though virtually on the nod would be extremely helpful. I am grateful to him for his support on that issue.
Mr. David Kidney: On the daring suggestion that Report should actually involve a report, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that I have suggested in this and the previous Parliament that, just as we have explanatory notes for Bills on Second Reading, such a report should be available in the Vote Office on Report?
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I should have paid tribute to him for the fact that he has promoted that idea. I put it to the Deputy Leader of the House that, on a tripartite basis, we feel that there is an absurdity and that the House should address the anomaly.
Two other points come out in the evidence put to the Modernisation Committee, and we have not yet been able to find the right way to develop them and incorporate them in our process. First, it surely must be important that the process that decides how best to slice up Committee time cannot logically begin until those Members who will serve on that Committee are agreed upon—I mentioned that just now—but then there must be proper time before the Committee sits. It is written into the report that we think that the Government should allow at least two weekends between the agreement on the Floor of the House about who will serve on a Committee before that Committee sits. That time is the minimum to allow not just those hon. Members who will serve on the Committee but other hon. Members who may be interested to feed into the process of determining how best to divide up the time. There must be greater flexibility to cope with unforeseen issues such as the extra material that comes forward.
Secondly, the final decisions on the allocation of time on Report surely cannot logically take account of the discussions in Committee, let alone tabled amendments, until we know what they will be. There is a current case: the Water Bill will be considered in the House on Monday. Substantial amendments may well be tabled today—or, indeed, at least in theory, on Monday—that could be selected for debate. How can it be decided days previously how to divide up the proceedings on Report, especially when time is relatively limited, without full knowledge of the issues to be raised? We have to pace that process more intelligently than we have done.
I regret that we will have to let the existing Sessional Orders stand—I assume that we will do so—because the report is, frankly, a non-progress report. A great deal of
968
work remains to be done. I hope that the Leader of the House and, indeed, other hon. Members will give a firm undertaking that this is not the last word on the issue. I regret that, for reasons not unconnected with the changes in the Modernisation Committee's chairmanship this year, we have not made as much progress on the issue as I should have liked, but let me re-emphasise that we were unable to make better progress in the end because there was a degree of complacent lethargy in the usual channels.
All too often, the main Opposition Whips Office has taken the view that, "Oh, one day we may be over there again, so we don't want to improve the situation, open up, make things more transparent, let Back Benchers in and have a legislative business committee." I regret that very much. My hon. Friend the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip was here just now, but perhaps it is just as well if I say in his absence that we do not want to be dragged into the sort of lethargy that, I am afraid, the usual channels have undertaken all too often in the pursuit of the old Buggins's turn approach: "We'll get there one day, and in the meantime, it's too bad."
Mr. Shepherd: After that demolition of the existing process, I wish to ask about the proposals for improvement—the motion—because it involves the continuance of the existing Sessional Orders. I have not heard how one reconciles support for the continuance of the Sessional Orders with the burden of the argument that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Perhaps he could crisply tell us.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman has heard me often in Committee; I shall be as brief as I can. I want to change the Sessional Orders, but it is clear that we have to try to develop a cross-party consensus. Just to throw out the Sessional Orders this afternoon would not be a constructive way forward, but I hope that he will give me his support in the Modernisation Committee so that we do not let this bone of contention lie. I hope that he will persuade his colleagues, too, that oppositionitis—rejecting any attempt to improve the situation—is equally foolish, negative and does nothing for Parliament's reputation. There is work to be done, and somehow or other we have to persuade those in the Whips Offices of the other two main parties that this issue will not go away.
Mrs. Dunwoody: It is illogical to say, "I disagree with all of this. We've looked at it more than once. It is not working. However, I am going to let it go because other people want it." We are here to express a view and to say if we do not want something. Many of us are used to being in minorities that turn into majorities. If the hon. Gentleman is serious, he should vote against the Sessional Orders.
Mr. Tyler: I hope the hon. Lady has read the memorandum—
Mrs. Dunwoody: With care.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for that. The memorandum does not suggest reverting back to what was an unsatisfactory situation. I do not accept the implication of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills that

969
everything will be wonderful when we go back to the old system. The situation was eloquently described by the Chairman of Ways and Means, whose suggestions have been blocked. I tactfully warn the Whips that that blockage cannot be allowed to continue for ever. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has much more experience than I have of what happens in the Government Whips Office, but I think that one day the House will revolt against the hegemony of the Whips Office.
We have had fewer deferred Divisions recently, which I welcome. They should not happen every evening. To some extent, they have become a non-issue. It is important to recall that they were accepted on the basis that they were to be on stand-alone subsidiary issues. We should not be in the invidious position of having to make a major decision on a deferred vote.
I do not know where the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst got the idea that the problem had never arisen before. As a conscientious Member of the House, he is in the Chamber to hear every word that is discussed before he votes, but I have to break it to him—perhaps he has not observed this before—that some hon. Members will not have heard our words of wisdom if we vote today. Quite a few Members come to the House to vote without a completely clear idea of the issues at stake. That is an awful confession and perhaps I should not say it, but as we all know that the best way to keep a secret is to talk about it in the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon, I think that I will escape without encountering the wrath of the gods.
We often vote on an amendment that has either not been debated or been debated the day before. Detaching the debate and the Division is not a dreadful, radical, revolutionary idea. If every time we voted, every Member of Parliament had to put his or her hand on a truthometer or, for those of us who believe, the Bible and say, "I've heard every word of the discussion", there would not be many people in the Division Lobby. The idea that we are breaking a great parliamentary and constitutional convention by detaching a debate from a Division is, frankly, baloney. I hope we can put that to bed.
Mr. Woolas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one advantage of a deferred Division is that if a Member has not been present for a debate, there is an opportunity for him or her to be made aware of it before casting the vote?
Mr. Tyler: That may be true. What I have also noticed, which is interesting, is that Members on both sides of the House—no doubt this applies to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst as well—sometimes take the advice of others on how to vote when they go through the Division Lobby with their pink bit of paper on a Wednesday afternoon. He is a man of great independence, so I recognise that he will weigh up the advantages of the advice that he is given, perhaps from the usual channels, as he goes through the Division Lobby. Let us not fool ourselves, however. The House could not operate if every time we divided every hon. Member had to weigh up every issue debated in the preceding discussion, as much as I may wish that that were the case.
Mr. Shepherd rose—
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman does his best to be here for every debate but, as I am about to finish, I will not give way again.
Deferred Divisions are not the ideal way to operate, but they are a reasonable way of dealing with a small problem. It is significant that we do not have to vote in that way often. The Modernisation Committee still has a great deal of work to do. I look forward with interest to hearing what other hon. Members think should be our top priority.
2.34 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). As is so often the case when we discuss parliamentary matters and the way in which we discuss our business, I find myself broadly and strongly in agreement with almost everything he says. I shall cover in detail some of the points he made.
I hope that the House listened to what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. She put the debate in the right context. What is Parliament all about? What are we doing here? How well do we hold the Executive to account? We are sent here both to support our parties and also, as parliamentarians, to scrutinise the Executive. The proposals, in that they affect the procedures of the House, go to the heart of those issues. The truth, as I think hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, is that we scrutinise the Government very poorly indeed at the moment, and it is getting worse.
When the former leader of the Conservative party, Sir Edward Heath, gave his final speech to the House—he sat where the hon. Member for North Cornwall is sitting now—he said that in his parliamentary lifetime power had shifted inexorably from Parliament to the Executive, and that if we had any sense we would scrutinise ourselves, resist that move and correct the position. If anything, things have got worse since then, as any fair-minded parliamentarian on either side of the House would recognise. If we cannot see the dangers in that and the warnings to us, we will blindly bear witness to the complete decline of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. It is as serious as that. That is why we have to get the procedures right.
Unlike the shadow Leader of the House, I think that, in principle, there is a lot of good sense in the programming of business, but in practice it is not working, and the ways in which it is not working are serious. Unless Parliament asserts itself and corrects the position along the lines discussed today, we will become a place that simply rubber-stamps the Executive, and that will be to the detriment of everyone.
I am in favour of programming in principle. There is nothing exceptional about trying to have an orderly procedure for our business. The first Standing Committee that I sat on was in 1983 on the Telecommunications Bill, which privatised the telecommunications sector. We prided ourselves in opposing it rigorously. I sat beside, and at the feet of, Mr. John Golding, the former Member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who took me through the procedures. He said., "Our job, my boy, is to oppose."

971
Indeed, he drove me back to north Staffordshire every Thursday night and explained what we had done well and what we had done badly. His idea of opposition was to make life as uncomfortable for the Minister, Mr. Kenneth Baker, now the noble Lord Baker, as we possibly could. His view of how that could be achieved was by prolonging procedures. Colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, will remember his famous 11-hour speech when we considered that Bill.
Mrs. Dunwoody: John Golding was a remarkable man. I do not want my hon. Friend to be unfair to him. He went on for more than 11 hours, but because he knew everything there was to know about telecommunications not only did he not repeat himself, but the Chairman did not have to call him to order because, almost unusually, he knew what he was talking about.
Mr. Fisher: I concede to my hon. Friend that nobody knew more about the telecommunications industry and its practices than Mr. John Golding. However, I should explain that he kept in order only by the skin of his teeth. He explained to me what he described as the Swiss roll way of scrutinising amendments in Committee. His method was to roll out an argument against an amendment. Having reached the end of the argument, his practice was to say, "It is just possible that I am mistaken." He would then roll out the entire argument again from a negative point of view, thus scrutinising his own opposition to the amendment.
Everything that Mr. John Golding said was well informed. Perhaps he was much better informed than the rest of the membership of the Committee put together because of his great experience. It is a slightly romantic idea that everything that he said was completely constructive or in order.
I suspect that we were wrong to oppose that Bill in the way that we did. It certainly made consideration of it nonsensical in Committee. It was not really proper scrutiny, not least because when eventually we so irritated the Government that they imposed a guillotine, swathes of the Bill—I think that we reached only clause 30 of an 80-clause Bill—that affected people working in the telecommunications industry enormously were never debated.
From that moment on, I recognised that, exciting and macho though it was to fight the Government in such a way, it was wholly non-productive and did not serve good scrutiny. Ever since, I have recognised that there is much to be said for good programming. However, that is a big proviso. There must be intelligent programming.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is setting out the grounds of the judgment of opposition parties as to how they treat consideration of a Bill. In consequence of the decisions of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues the then Government introduced a guillotine, which was a matter that had to be debated on the Floor of the House. We are talking about who has ownership of a Bill in Committee, and that has historically been the Committee itself.
Mr. Fisher: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's last statement. A Bill should be the property of a Standing
972
Committee while it is in Committee. However, I dispute his earlier point. The assumption behind it is that time is the only weapon of any interest, and it was not an effective weapon against the then Government.
Mr. Shepherd: The assumption was not that time was the only weapon. It was the judgment of those who were then in Opposition as to how they should conduct themselves.
Mr. Fisher: I accept the distinction.
Mr. Shepherd: It is an important one.
Mr. Fisher: Indeed. I concede that
However, it was the convention that Standing Committees saw time as their only way of putting pressure on the Government, and it was not effective pressure when it came to scrutiny. It was pointless pressure. I do not think that either party can point to a substantive concession being made in Committee or on the Floor of the House because of the pressure of time.
Mr. Forth: One of the points of harassment, nuisance and guerrilla warfare is that occasionally it might elicit information from a Government or even a concession. More important, in the overall sense of the parliamentary Session and the way it works, such an approach may force a Government to prioritise their business in the relationship between this place and the House of Lords. The weapon of time is not necessarily as futile as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It may seem sterile in Committee when considered in isolation, but in the overall context of parliamentary procedure it can have relevance.
Mr. Fisher: I concede that strategically time has a significance. However, specifically, in the scrutiny of a Bill, it is irrelevant and possibly even counterproductive. There is a distinction between strategy and detail.
Mr. Kidney: Would my hon. Friend agree that these recent exchanges overlook an important body of membership of the House? I refer to Back-Bench Members who support the Government of the day. Under the old system they were under great pressure to shut up and do nothing. I can remember a Whip telling me to fill in my Christmas cards rather than even follow the debate. Under programming, Back-Bench Members get an equal share of the time if they want to participate in debate. I would argue that the quality of debates in Committee has increased greatly.
Mr. Fisher: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and that there can be a proper and even-handed debate in Committee, though that reduces the time available to the Opposition. However, I accept that it improves scrutiny. Important and valuable contributions can be made by Government Back Benchers on behalf of constituents or as a result of previous knowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said. My hon. Friend makes a good and fair point. That is another reason why I think that in principle programming is a good idea, if it can be made to work.
The House is enormously in debt to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for the 20-pages worth of detail in the report, showing that the

973
constriction of time has changed considerably. His comments have not been read into the record. Perhaps I should wait for the hon. Gentleman's speech and not anticipate it.
By my estimate, between 1881 and 1975 debate was curtailed on Bills on 80 occasions. During 1997—the Government's first year—consideration of Bills was curtailed on only three occasions. Since 1998, time has been curtailed and circumscribed on 93 occasions. Something is going badly wrong. As has been said, it is happening not as a last resort, as it was when the guillotine was imposed up until 1997, about 120 years, but as a first resort. It is happening even before we can see the shape and flow of debate or argument on a Bill. The hon. Member for North Cornwall was absolutely right in saying that until the Bill goes into Committee we cannot hear fully what representations outside bodies will make. I am referring to those that will have to put the proposed legislation into effect in their industries, in the public sector or wherever. Until we can hear the Government defending their Bill and deploying their arguments, we cannot test whether it is good or bad legislation. The idea that all the amendments are clear before we go into Committee is a fiction.
In a decent Committee, the process of scrutiny provokes intelligent legislation, intelligent scrutiny and intelligent amendments, possibly from the Government as much as from the Opposition. In recent years the Government. to their credit, have recognised that, as a matter of routine, proposed legislation is nowadays so poorly drafted that their own legislation sometimes needs dozens or even hundreds of Government amendments. That happens in Committee. The idea that as we go into Committee we can have any idea how long consideration should last, or will naturally last, is a fantasy. It is only in Committee that we begin to see the picture.
I move on to possible ways of remedying the situation. The House is in the debt of the Chairman and Ways and Means and the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills for the shape of a more constructive system. We need a more hybrid system, and essentially that is what the Chairman of Ways and Means and the hon. Member for North Cornwall appear to me, as I read their contributions in the report, to be advocating.
We should have programming that gives an out-date. That is sensible. It concentrates everyone's mind if it is known that there are so many hours or so many sittings in which to divide the debate. That ensures that the important parts of the Bill, which depending on the drafting sometimes appear at the beginning of the Bill or at the end of it, can be covered. It is irresponsible of the House to allow legislation to pass from this place to the other place if important areas of a Bill have not been scrutinised. We should be ashamed of ourselves if that ever happens. Having an out-date would concentrate people's minds and ensure full scrutiny takes place. We would know roughly when scrutiny would be complete but, in addition to an out-date, there should be procedures within the programme for that date to be reassessed. I assume that that is what the hon. Member for North Cornwall is proposing—during discussion of the Bill there ought to be an opportunity for both Government and Opposition to review the proposed out-date. The setting of an out-date and a review in Committee should be transparent, public and
974
published, so that everybody can see what is going on and what the arguments of the Government and the Opposition are. It is not acceptable for a date to be smuggled out via the usual channels and produced as a fait accompli. We must have a transparent system with some elasticity and flexibility to allow for injury time when things go wrong.
If the Government think that they will be run ragged by that arrangement in practice, they have the right that Governments have had for the past 100 years—no one has ever objected to it—and can introduce a guillotine if it is clear that the Opposition are playing games and obstructing proceedings. Old guillotine motions had to brought to the Floor of the House, justified and explained. The Government had to have a good case, or at least one for the Leader of the House to make. Most Members, with exceptions such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), would have confidence in a hybrid system that is flexible, transparent, open and is not smuggled away. Such a system would address the question of whether we legislate well, provide enough time, achieve fair scrutiny and are ceasing to rubber-stamp Government legislation. If we can answer those questions we will begin to move towards a way of conducting our business that is more intelligent and more credible to the public.
2.52 pm
Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who is the shop steward of Parliament First, a n organisation that draws support from Members on both sides of the House, is seeking to improve the terms of trade between Parliament and the Executive and has sponsored a number of exciting publications and ideas. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
In the spirit of our debate, I want to subject my speech to a tight programme motion and make a short contribution on two general matters. First, however, I should like to pick up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the circularity of the matters under discussion. The front page of the report shows that the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee is the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). Paragraph 29 makes recommendations about late amendments, and states:
"The Government should support such proposals."
The recommendations are aimed at the Government, particularly its business managers, and the chief business manager is the Leader of the House, who is also the Chairman of the Committee. We need to repatriate the Modernisation Committee, and perhaps change its name to the "Strengthening of Parliament Committee". The House would then be in charge of setting the agenda, rather than ceding it to the Leader of the House, who is increasingly becoming like the character in "The Mikado" who wore a number of different hats and spent a large chunk of the opera talking to himself in his various roles.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) for his amendment, and we look forward to his speech, as he has been a doughty defender of the rights of the House

975
in this area. Two factors influence the shape of our proceedings in the House. One is defined and tangible and consists of Standing Orders, rules and Sessional Orders. The other is less defined and consists of the relationships between the usual channels, personalities and the mood of the House. If the second factor is all right, the rules are less important. If it is wrong, the rules become very important. In the last Parliament, relationships became difficult. In my view, a few of my colleagues were too diligent in subjecting the business of the House to detailed scrutiny, and deals were no longer possible. The Government used their majority unilaterally to change the rules and, in my view, overreacted slightly. The rules that we are debating today were therefore introduced, but they are not satisfactory. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they are obstructing the House in its efforts to deal with its business better.
The mood of the House has changed and is different from what it was at the beginning of the last Parliament. We now have an opportunity to do what the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and others have suggested—look at the advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means at Ev 2 in the report, which states:
"A programme for a standing committee should prescribe an out-date only. It is the experience of Chairmen that the use of internal knives is frequently unhelpful."
I suggest to the Deputy Leader of the House that in the next Session we should try with a number of Bills to go back to a system that can work perfectly well with good will. We should leave to the good sense of the Committee, the usual channels and the Front-Bench spokesmen the decision on how to use the available time, thus avoiding the inflexibility of a programme motion. If we try that and it does not work, fine. However, there is an appetite for making that alternative approach work, and it would be an improvement on current arrangements.
At the heart of the problem, as has been said, is the size of the Government's legislative programme. Peers are on their last legs, and are up all night dealing with the remaining stages of a number of Bills, many of which left the Commons with a large number of clauses unconsidered. The evidence is in the Modernisation Committee report. I served on two Standing Committees in this Session—one considered the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003 and the other the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill. In both cases, we did not debate key clauses. We were not fooling around wasting time—we genuinely did not have time to address some of the key issues. No wonder that the other place is having to focus on such provisions. The position on Government amendments has got worse, rather than better in recent years.
Mr. Hain: May I make an observation about the other place? If the right hon. Gentleman makes a detailed comparison of the extent of scrutiny of Bills in the other place and our own experience in the Commons, he will find that the Lords are not scrutinising Bills as effectively as us. In addition, the House of Lords does
976
not have a proper procedure for timetabling business, which is one reason why it is getting into a mess and effectively defying the will of the Commons.
Sir George Young: I would draw a different conclusion from the Leader of the House. If the Lords are to avoid the problems that we have been discussing this afternoon, it is important that the Government do not have the facility to introduce guillotines and programme motions in the upper House, as there would then be a risk of legislation going through both Houses with inadequate consideration.
The root of the problem that we are discussing this afternoon is the fact that we are trying get a quart into a pint pot. Until the Government exercise self-discipline on the volume of Bills that are introduced, we shall continue to have arguments about the way in which we programme legislation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was generous about paragraph 11 of the report, in which the Committee outlined four basic criteria that a reformed legislative system should be able to meet. Three of the four criteria have not been met. The Opposition do not have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance; all parts of a Bill are not properly considered; and Bills are not prepared properly in many cases and require a mass of new Government amendments. By the Committee's own criteria, the present regime is missing three of the four targets.
I have nothing against draft Bills, but I am slightly worried about paragraph 15, which looks at such Bills. Of the 10 draft Bills introduced in this Session, six were considered by departmental Select Committees whose members, in a sense, are the best folk to do that job. However, there is a risk of their agenda being captured by a hyperactive Government Department, and the Committee's other work being squeezed out. I can therefore see some advantage in establishing more Joint Committees so that the other place can help to deal with the legislative burden.
Finally, there is a risk that deferred Divisions will bring the House into disrepute and encourage cynicism outside about how we conduct our business. I think that there is something almost cynical about voting on a proposal five or six days after it has been debated. The hon. Member for North Cornwall sought to justify such an arrangement by saying that, in debating Bills, there were circumstances in which we voted on an amendment on the day after it had been debated. However, that occurs because of where an amendment falls in considering a Bill and I do not think it is a true parallel with what the Government are now doing. I shall certainly vote against the recommendations on deferred Divisions.
Like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I have nothing against programming in principle, as it can represent a good opportunity to make better use of time, but we are certainly not there yet. I shall need persuading before I accept that the current Sessional Orders are the same ones that we should live with in the next Session. I urge the Modernisation Committee to revisit the matter and to see whether it can propose a better remedy for the problems that we have addressed this afternoon.
3.1 pm
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The only matter on the Order Paper that there has been no attempt to amend is whether we should continue with the existing Sessional Orders. I am a member of the Select Committee on Modernisation, which has now deliberated on that question twice. On both occasions, a majority has concluded that the arrangement is not working quite as we would like. We must ask why. I have had enough of this.
We have a history in this House, and rules and regulations called Standing Orders. We can compare the past with the present and look at the one question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked: are our Orders working? My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said that the arrangement does not even meet three of the four objectives set by the Select Committee. It certainly does not do so.
The purpose of my minority report—I shall speak to it, if I may—was not to be contentious, but to try to give a history and the background to what we have been through. I regret that tables A and B, which form a crucial document for anyone who wants to examine how programme orders or guillotines have operated in this Session, do not follow my one question: have the Sessional Orders achieved their objective? I sought to list appendices A and B in that part of the report so that the text flowed and so that we could ask ourselves what the effects had been on the basis of a direct comparison. The truth is that, when the information is set out and seen on the page, there is no evidence to support the contention that we are discussing Bills any better than we have in the past. What we have put in the hands of the Government, however, is the means systematically to guillotine every Bill that comes before this place.
One member of the Committee, whom I shall not name, said that they had never read "Erskine May", which records the traditions of this House, how Standing Orders have been used and the practice that has been followed. "Erskine May" refers to guillotine motions. The 1997 edition notes that such motions
"may be regarded as the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business, and the rights of debate."
I maintain that our report—the majority report—does not even address that central proposition of "Erskine May", which reflects the practice, custom and purpose of this House.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the distinguished Chairman of one of our Select Committees, had it in mind that the focus of why we are here—the assemblage of Clerks and the majesty of Parliament—is not about us, but about those whom we represent. Having given the Government this enormous power of majoritarianism in Sessional Orders, there is no weighing process whereby we can criticise them for giving only three minutes to debate the slaughter of a first-born Bill and for insisting on their out-date. Not one Member can say "Hang on, I think that the slaughter of the first-born might require half an hour."
978
We have so accepted a process that seeps through our understanding of viho we are and what we are about. Outside bodies, including the Hansard Society, for which I have great respect, and Clerks have toiled over the years, saying, "Surely, as reasonable people, we can construct a system whereby we can weigh elements of debate, and allow freedom of expression and the rights of opposition." Yet in looking at the history of this place, we see that its origin was to give opposition ownership in Committees, as they were taken from the Floor of the House and put off the premises, so to speak. That was about doing our job for ourselves and it gave opposition the ownership of saying, in one sense, "This is the proposition of us, the majority; we believe this is right—challenge us."
That is familiar to every Briton. We do it in our courts: I make a case, and the defence makes its case. That is essential to our concept of equity and justice. This high court, as it once was, followed that tradition, but, as the figures given by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) showed, it broke with it almost a century and a third ago. The Irish question had brought the Government to despair: three months, no less, were spent on one measure. The effect of the new arrangements were recognised at that time—indeed, some of the comments that were made have been cited. At the will of the majority, a great constitutional measure could, if necessary, be swept through in an afternoon. People were mindful of the fact that that was a very important departure, and that its effect was significant for the well-being of the nation.
When we discuss guillotines in the modern age, it is one of the ironies of life that, as we become less educated, in a sense., about who we are, where we come from and who we represent, we find it tedious that oppositions and minorities should be allowed to rattle on. The truth is that Governments have had the power, and have maintained it over the years, to say "We have had enough of this." However, that power should be used only at the end of the process once it has been ascertained that what is happening is deliberate obstructionism rather than considered argument about whether a Bill is appropriate for the country.
I totted up slightly different figures from those of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—my hon. Friend—and I put them in the report. Between 1946 and 18 February 1997, 67 Bills were guillotined. It was an accelerating process. I criticised Mrs. Thatcher's Government, whom I supported, for guillotining as many as 43 Bills. I thought that that was terrible. At the time, I was happy to note that so many distinguished figures in the present Government agreed; they, too, thought it was terrible. Between 1946 and 1997, 67 Bills were guillotined: under new Labour's six years, 94 Bills have been guillotined.
The truth is that, historically, most Bills were not opposed. I have sat through debates as the House has supported tranches of such legislation. Committees have undertaken detailed scrutiny quite satisfactorily. This has become a major issue because guillotines represent an instrument of the Government's control over this House. That is why the Government want the Sessional Orders to continue.
I have many beliefs that I want to represent on behalf of my constituents. I profoundly believe that the new constitution for Europe destroys the very essence of

979
democracy in this country. I want that to be fully debated, but if the Orders are passed there is nothings to stop the Government saying that two days in Committee of the whole House is sufficient—and I cannot even debate whether that is so. Yet when we are denied a referendum, the Prime Minister advances the argument that our custom and usage is for Parliament to consider all such issues and that the will of Parliament will prevail. That is why this is a major constitutional issue. We want to find a way in which rational and decent people can properly discuss legislation, but the Leader of the House, who sits on the Select Committee that makes these proposals, has delivered into the hands of the Government the means by which they render us ineffective.
Other hon. Members touched on the consequences. Power has moved from here to the House of Lords, which is drowning in the examination of legislation that we are not considering. I urge hon. Members, the public, the Hansard Society—anyone who trusts in Parliament or is interested in the fundamentals of our democracy—to look at the detail on the guillotines in tables A and B. When I speak to people outside who question what we are, or are not, doing has no idea that if I want to speak on, say, the fluoridation of water, I am subject to a two-hour guillotine that will not even remotely allow me to express a human rights interest in the autonomy of the individual. They do not understand that the new Labour Government have constructed Sessional Orders that throttle and belittle our purpose.
We talk about connecting with the outside world, but we are not connecting with anyone. Parliament would revive if we were allowed to carry out the task that we were elected to perform—to come here to give assent or acquiescence to the measures proposed by the Government or to reject them if we think them inappropriate. The massive armies of parties locked in debates between themselves have lost the wider purpose of our business. These Sessional Orders should be rejected: we should revert to the practice that has been successful in the past.
3.13 pm
Barbara Follett: I welcome the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly, in the debate. Before I do so, I apologise to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for having come into the Chamber halfway through his passionate speech. I am afraid that I was a victim of programming—the programming of planes from Germany, where last night I attended an awards ceremony: not for me, I hasten to say, but for my husband. I got here as quickly as I could.
As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I am extremely pleased to support the reinstatement of the Sessional Orders and broadly to support the contents of our report. The report is not, as some hon. Members assert, blindly in favour of programming in fact, it criticises it and says that we need to revisit it constantly. It says that the programming that we have at the moment is imperfect and that we must continue to work on it as a Parliament—not as parties—to make it better.
I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and
980
for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), because I believe that we have to consider where knives fall in Committees. It is not sensible to set knives—or even, sometimes, an outdate—before the Committee has first met and has looked at what it has to discuss in terms of contentious areas and areas where more time might be needed. We should be able to do that together, as adults, and to arrive at a decent compromise that allows proper scrutiny and debate.
The report says that the purpose of programming is to enhance legitimate debate and scrutiny. Frankly, when I first came into this House in 1997, a great deal of our debate was not legitimate. Had I been present for John Golding's 11-hour speech on telecommunications, riveting and encyclopaedic though it may have been, I am afraid that I would not have felt it to be a legitimate use of the House's time; and, as a taxpayer, I would have been extremely irritated that the only way in which the Opposition—which was my party in those days—could think of opposing the Bill was by delaying it.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I know that my hon. Friend has strong views about another place, but, for her information, two Labour Members once managed completely to derail an inadequate plan for its reorganisation by using the tactics of delay, not only against that legislation, but against every piece of legislation, until the Government of the day abandoned it. They were Lord Joel Barnett, who had been a Treasury Minister, and my most honoured friend, the right hon. Robert Sheldon. It would be difficult to make remarks such as those that she just made if one was not here and did not understand how such procedures worked.
Barbara Follett: I bow to my hon. Friend's greater knowledge of what happened in this place before I entered it, but I was referring to a specific example. What those noble Friends did was useful and good, but I am talking about using 11 hours of delaying tactics. When I came here in 1997, we did not have programming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central said, it was not introduced until 1998, and that was out of necessity. I have served on the Standing Committees on two Bills—the National Minimum Wage Bill, which had no programming, and the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which had programming, but is specifically mentioned in the report as being an example of bad programming that did not allow enough time.
Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend says that we were forced into considering programming. Presumably, therefore, she is suggesting that during our first Session in 1997 we were completely stymied by mindless opposition, but there is no evidence for that. Indeed, the details that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) appended to the report show that we needed to use the guillotine only four times during that Session, which is about the average for the previous 10 years.
Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I did not say that we were being paralysed. Let me underline again what I was saying about legitimate debate. The National Minimum Wage Bill Committee once sat for 36 hours. The Deputy Prime Minister and I listened to

981
the Opposition discuss almost anything except the minimum wage. That was the longest sitting of any Standing Committee.
Mr. Forth: It sounds to me as if what the hon. Lady is complaining about is the fact that she was inconvenienced. We come back to this time and again: whatever the pros and cons may be of delay or irritation—I am in favour of that being used against any Government, and I experienced it when I was in government and did not complain about it at the time—I am irked that Labour Members seem to be obsessed with having an easy, slick, organised, convenient life, rather than occasionally accepting inconvenience. Is that what the hon. Lady is saying?
Barbara Follett: That is precisely what I am not saying. I came into politics to make things better. I do not care how inconvenienced I am or how long I spend in this House if what we are doing is legitimate and useful. On the National Minimum Wage Bill Committee it was not legitimate or useful. It was wasting time. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that time wasting is the only way in which we can oppose. It is not.
Mr. Forth: It is one way.
Barbara Follett: It is one way, but it is a fairly useless way. The best way is by persuasion.
Mr. John Hayes: The point, surely, is that what is legitimate in the hon. Lady's terms should not be solely in the purview of the governing party. Legitimacy is not for the Government to dictate or define; that is for the House and individual Members. Surely she would acknowledge that.
Barbara Follett: Nor is that just for individual Members to define. Individual Members and the Opposition held members of the National Minimum Wage Bill Committee prisoner.[Interruption.] I am not complaining about it. I am saying that it was a waste of time and that we should not be in Parliament wasting our time and taxpayers' time.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Barbara Follett: No, I should like to make some progress.
The purpose of programming is to enhance debate and scrutiny, so I am glad to support it. We need to revisit exactly how we impose programming on lengthier Bills. This report outlines that and gives a steer towards it. We have to stop harking back to the old days. They were not all that good, nor all that bad. I hope that I will not hark back to my time in the House in quite the same way as some have done today. I am 60 years old and a pensioner. I am not young or particularly keen on modernisation. I am too old for it. However, I am particularly keen on this House being effective and respected. A reason why we are losing respect is not, as some hon. Members say, because we are not working long hours. We all work impossibly
982
long hours either here or in our constituencies. It is because we talk rubbish a lot of the time and we have to admit that.
Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Lady should know.
Barbara Follett: The hon. Gentleman knows more than I do about talking rubbish. I have heard him do so in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill Committee. We must stop it if we are to be respected and taken seriously again.
Mr. Shepherd: My only observation, other than congratulating the hon. Lady on being 60, a year which I also celebrate—important as it is to the debate—is that the old days are just seven years ago. They are not some mythical past. I should be grateful if she, too, would explain why she supports these measures when they are clearly not working.
Barbara Follett: I believe that the measures are working—not well. but they are working. We have a duty to make them work better. What we are doing in Parliament is to prevent them from working at all. We resist programming and say that if we go back everything will be all right. We have to look at what we have. It is there because it is necessary to stop us talking rubbish.
We must also stop drawing a comparison between guillotining and programming. Guillotining is cutting off debate, whereas programming is getting together to decide where and when we debate. We need to make sure that we understand that programming is something that we do together. It is the responsibility in particular of Ministers and the usual channels to make sure that it works.
Mr. Cameron: In relation to the Criminal Justice Bill, where 106 clauses were not even debated, will the hon. Lady explain the difference between a programme that allows that and a guillotine that causes it?
Barbara Follett: The Committee had a chance to do something about that, but, as far as I know, it did not so. I was not on that Committee, but I know that there were a massive number of clauses.
We are not taking responsibility for what we are doing. The report tries to get us to do that. I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I respect his minority report. I pledge to work with him to make programming work better. We must understand that guillotining is suppressing debate and programming is trying to work out together how to give the Opposition enough time to discuss contentious areas and not just filibuster contentious areas. I support the report.
3.26 pm
Mr. David Cameron: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). She did not tell us whether her husband won the award in Berlin, but I am sure we are all keen Ken Follett readers and hope that he picked up a globe or whatever last night.

983
We have had an excellent, albeit short debate. Perhaps in contrast to some contributors I should stress my inexperience. Nevertheless, I can say that I made my maiden speech during a debate on programming. I expressed my scepticism then and I have had little reason to change my view since.
Several hon. Members talked about the Modernisation Committee report. Perhaps it is wrong for me to express a view, having joined the Committee so recently, but I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) said. I do not think that the Committee works properly. It is neither a Committee of the House, independent of the Government, nor something else. It is half way between. It is ably chaired by the Leader of the House, but it would be better if the Committee looked at the processes and procedures—[Interruption.] I would not call it the Modernisation Committee; it should be renamed. It would be better if parliamentary colleagues had a proper look at these issues without the Government being so involved, so I agree with my right hon. Friend that it does not work.
Summing up the debate for my party, I oppose the Sessional Orders for three good reasons. First, the routine programming of Bills is wrong. Hon. Members have expressed differing views. Some favour having an out-date for all Bills, but only that; some, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), whose minority report is very good, would go much further. It is interesting that we heard only one contribution from someone—the hon. Member for Stevenage—who believes that the system is working and that there should be routine programming of Bills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an extremely strong speech, and I want to quote the opening line of his minority report, which says it all:
"The working of the House is dependent on a degree of tolerance and forbearance by the majority towards Opposition and minority opinion."
The routine programming of Bills, which we now have, does not allow for that degree of tolerance and forbearance. My hon. Friend quoted some powerful figures. The report says that
"in the 57 years from 1946 to 1997 only 6i bills were guillotined",
but that in the past six years there have in effect been 94 guillotines.
Therefore, my first reason for opposing the Sessional Orders is that routine programming should not be necessary. The Government should look at the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), among others, and try to give some Bills just an out-date and not a detailed programme motion.
My second reason for opposing the Sessional Orders is that by any stretch of the imagination the current system is simply not working, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and many others said. The figures in the memo at the back of the Public Bill Office report are staggering. There are 27 Bills in the current Session, and knives have come into play 53 times. Two hundred and sixty-four groups of
984
amendments have not been reached because of knives. Last night I added up all the clauses and schedules not reached, and it comes to a staggering 519. Many of those are not discussed at all, not even on Report. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons asked what the figures were previously, but he must listen to Members in his own party who, after careful consideration, are saying that the system really is not working.
In an intervention on the hon. Member for Stevenage I mentioned the Criminal Justice Bill, on whose Standing Committee I sat. There was no filibustering in that Committee. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) also served on it and I am sure that he would back me up if he were here. On that Bill, 71 groups of amendments were not reached and 106 clauses and schedules were not discussed at all. Just to give one example, that Bill made the big change in criminal procedure of moving the charging of suspects from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. It was not debated at all in Committee. It was not reached and therefore went under the knife. If our constituents knew how badly we were doing the vital work of scrutiny, they would rightly be even more concerned.
Barbara Follett: The hon. Gentleman said that I thought that the system was working well, although I may be misquoting him. I think that it needs a great deal of improvement, and he has just given an example of where that is needed. That is why I am glad that he is on the Modernisation Committee. Perhaps we can work on that.
Mr. Cameron: That brings us to some of the points that I have made during my brief time on the Committee. We need to look at those issues. We need some change.
The third reason why the Sessional Orders should not remain as they are is contained in the very powerful evidence that we heard from the Chairman of Ways and Means, which has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and by the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. That is powerful evidence from someone who really understands how previous systems worked or did not work, and how the current system is not working. We should take that extremely seriously. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), too, referred in a powerful speech to the contribution of the Chairman of Ways and Means and said that we were going down the wrong track. Why are the Government so scared of having further debate in this place? That is a third reason why the system needs radical surgery.
Any newcomer to this place cannot help but be struck by these simple facts: we pass too much legislation, we do it too quickly and we do not give it enough scrutiny. Many Members have expressed those views this afternoon. The situation is already bad and the evidence seems to suggest that it is getting worse. The Modernisation Committee minority report, drafted by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire, gave some figures for the pages of legislation passing through this place. In 1997–98 there were 1,900; by 1999–2000 that had risen to 2,537. I have figures from the Library, showing that the situation is getting worse still. One could argue that the

985
introduction of programming has made the Government's life simply too easy because it encourages sloppy legislation. The number of Bills has not risen markedly—there were 39 in 1997–98 and 40 in 2001–02—but programming encourages sloppy legislation because the Government know that they can programme legislation and ram it through the House.
In the remainder of my time I shall point out what I think is wrong with the syste0m and say where we need to make progress. The hon. Member for North Cornwall took a similar approach. Here comes the shopping list. First, it should not be necessary to programme all Bills. There should be flexibility. Why not have an out-date where possible and, if the Government believe it to be necessary, programming where needed? They should consider that, rather than just having routine programming to drive everything through.
Secondly, as a number of hon. Members have said—for instance, the hon. Members for Stevenage and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central—programme motions are dealt with at virtually the same time as Second Reading. There should be time for a Committee to consider points made on Second Reading, and to decide whether to oppose the Bill and which matters need to be discussed in most detail. No account is taken of the number of amendments that may be tabled, not just by the Opposition but by the Government.
Thirdly, nowadays most programme motions are not debated. Surely they should be debated, especially when they relate to big Bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills gave a good example: will the programme motion on the legislation relating to the European constitution be taken straight through the House, with no proper discussion of how much time should be spent debating that legislation? I would prefer us not to have these wretched programme motions at all, but in that instance it would certainly be wrong for us not to be able to discuss the amount of time to be spent on debate.
Fourthly, the use of knives in Committee is far too inflexible. I know that the Programming Sub-Committee can change the arrangement, but that happens far too rarely. In the case of the Criminal Justice Bill, important measures fell under the knife. The Modernisation Committee report gives a brilliant example relating to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. All credit should be given to the Leader of the House for allowing us to include it, for it is pretty shocking. The report says:
"The effects of the short timetable were exacerbated to some degree by lengthy speeches…In the end, 58 groups of amendments and 73 clauses and schedules were lost to the knife. Clauses which were taken forthwith under the knife included all but four of the 11 clauses in Part 1".
The Leader of the House said that it was good for lobby groups to know when certain parts of a Bill would be debated, but it is just as true that it is dreadful for the lobby groups when the part of a Bill that they care about falls under the knife and is not discussed.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the provision for debating amendments tabled at a late stage. That is mentioned in the report. Will the Leader of the House give us some guarantees regarding the allowing of more time for debate? The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central used a good phrase: he said that there should be transparent public and published discussions on that.
986
The hon. Members for Stafford and for North Cornwall and I would all like a proper Report stage. Members who do not serve on a Standing Committee may be interested in the Bill none the less, and may want to know what has happened to it. They may have spoken and listened to speeches on Second Reading; once the Bill has disappeared into a Standing Committee, they may find it difficult to follow the Committee stage in detail, given all the work we must do here. What is needed is a proper report, perhaps from the Chairman of the Committee, listing amendments that were not debated, clauses that were not reached, schedules that were not discussed and Government amendments that were introduced, and specifying the amount of time spent debating those amendments. That would give hon. Members a sense of the shape of the Bill, how it had changed in Committee, and what work Parliament should still be doing to ensure that we do our job properly.
Third Reading has not been discussed today, but I want to place it on the record that Report stages much too often last only one day, with Third Reading following immediately. Members with an interest in the Bill who were not involved in the Committee stage might want to consider what happened on Report before deciding what to say on Third Reading. Third Readings are becoming a dignified rather than an efficient part of the constitution, which I think is wrong.
Another issue not mentioned today was the subject of a powerful point made to the Modernisation Committee by the Chairman of Ways and Means. I refer to Back-Bench amendments. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who has done a huge amount of work on the subject of historical allegations of abuse in children's homes, came up with some serious amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill. A lot of thought had gone into them. but because of the way in which the knives operated on Report, they fell. Obviously, there is little transparency in what is selected and what is not.
The Chairman of Ways and Means makes an excellent suggestion, which is to set up some form of legislative business Committee, to which Back-Bench Members could appeal and explain why their amendments should be selected and debated. I hope that that idea will be considered. Back-Bench amendments are all too often lost, particularly under our present harsh programming regime.
There are some good suggestions in the Modernisation Committee report. Programming Sub-Committees should meet as a matter of routine if the Government table a lot of amendments; I hope that that will happen. I also hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will give us a guarantee about the paragraph that says that more time should be guaranteed between the introduction of a Bill and its Second Reading, and also between the choosing of a Standing Committee and the start of its work.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I remain of the view that a great deal more needs to be done. The test should not be whether we are getting home early, or whether the passage of legislation is predictable; it should be whether we are doing our job properly—and as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich and others have said so clearly, we are not doing it right at the moment.

987
We have three things to do in the House. The first is to stand up for our constituents and the second is to hold the Government to account. Those two we do quite well. The third, however, is the business of passing legislation, and in my experience over the past two years, that is something we do very badly. I do not believe that the Sessional Orders will address that problem at all, so I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote them down when we get the chance, and start with a clean sheet of paper.
3.41 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): The whole House will agree that this has been an interesting and useful debate, and I thank right hon. and hon. Members, led by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), for their contributions. Let me repeat the remarks of the Leader of the House and say that it would be a great shame if this were to be the right hon. Gentleman's last speech as shadow Leader of the House. He is an asset to the House, even if on some occasions—indeed, on many occasions—he is somewhat on his own.
I notice that the right hon. Gentleman has not been reaching for his bleeper this afternoon; indeed, I am not even sure whether he has taken to wearing such a modern device—but if he has one, clearly it has not gone off. I congratulate him. He might wish to point out to the House that his deputy, who also made a good and well-informed speech today, was special adviser to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), so I am sure that he will be watching his progress very closely.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has a duty to the House and to the process of scrutinising the Executive's proposals, but he also, rightly, has a duty to the Government and to their right to achieve their legislative programme. After all, that is what the Government were elected to carry out. I think that most Members believe that the balance between those two pressures is about right. As many people have said in the debate, it could improve, but—contrary to what the shadow Leader of the House said—it is legitimate for the Government to expect that their legislative programme will be reasonably scrutinised and, at the end of the day, they should have the opportunity—
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Woolas: Let me develop my point before hon. Members start to intervene.
Programming did not originate with this Government; it originated from Committees of the House, particularly in 1985 and 1992, with Conservative majorities. Programming was not, as the Opposition have attempted to suggest today, motivated by the needs of a heavy-handed Government making irresponsible use of a large majority. It was originally motivated by a desire among Back Benchers on both sides of the House—and, indeed, among Front Benchers—for sensible timetabling of Bills.
Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the Procedure Committee's 1985 recommendation. The then Conservative Leader of the House, John Biffen, said that the recommendation favoured Governments, and on a free vote, a Conservative majority joined a Labour minority and voted it down.
Mr. Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but my point is that the motivation for programming has not come about through the desire of the Executive. He is more experienced in, and aware of, the route map of programming, but I should point out that programming evolved; it was not invented by the new Government in 1997. I wanted to make that point because it is an extremely important one.
Sensible timetabling of discussions—I emphasise the word "sensible" especially—when they are controversial, is a good thing for all concerned. It allows Front Benchers on both sides of the House to plan their speeches and interventions, and to plan with outside bodies, as is legitimate. It allows Back Benchers, who have many competing demands on their time, to know in advance with some accuracy when the issues of concern to them and their constituents will be debated. In my opinion, it is wrong to say that timetabling has had a detrimental effect on scrutiny, and the facts back that up. The House should look to the quality, as well as to the quantity, of scrutiny. On both counts, sensible timetabling has improved matters.
I concede—as the report concedes and my right hon. Friend conceded in his opening remarks—that in certain cases, programming has proved detrimental, and it is the business of this report and of this debate to try to improve it. It works well only if there is co-operation. That is part of its purpose: it gives Standing Committees and the usual channels the responsibility to work together to timetable debates in a sensible way.
In answer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), it is not programming that makes bad legislation; it is irresponsible filibustering that takes away from Members not involved in that filibuster the opportunity to debate the clauses and schedules that they consider important. If a commitment to co-operation were made—there have been many examples of co-operation in the current Session—programming would work for all of us.
Indeed, in researching for this debate, I found dozens of examples of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen congratulating the Government usual channels on the well-ordered manner of the debates. I was going to read all of them out, but some of the Members in question are present and I do not want to embarrass them today. However, I shall offer some examples. In the Standing Committee that considered the Licensing Bill, the following was said:
"We have no criticism of the end date and we are happy to work with it".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 April 2003; c.4.]
It was said of the programme motion for the Criminal Justice Bill that
"it would be utterly churlish not to thank the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). When he was Government Whip in charge of the Bill in Committee, he showed enormous flexibility."—[Official Report, 2 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 926.]

989
In the Standing Committee on the Extradition Bill, the Opposition spokesman said that
"there was no contention at the short Programming Sub-Committee … The matter was left to be reconsidered at a future meeting".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 January 2003; c. 4.]
There are many examples of programming benefiting the sensible work of the Committee.
Today's debate has been divided between those with an outright opposition, in principle, to the idea of programming, and those on the other side—I admit that they come from a wide spectrum—who accept the principle of programming but want to improve its operation. The Leader of the House and I include ourselves in the latter category: we are committed to making this work. In that context, it is wrong to portray programming as a measure adopted by a heavy-handed Government; it is a genuine attempt to provide sensible, modern timetabling of debates.
I want to consider the alternatives to programming that were described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett). The idea that there was a golden age is simply wrong.
Andrew Mackinlay: I do not want to go too deeply into this issue, but I want to consider those rare occasions when a Bill is considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. Two Bills relating to Northern Ireland were so considered in this Session. Both provided for a great deal of subordinate legislation, so they were not simple Bills. On the first occasion, there was no Committee stage. By the time we had dealt with the programme motion and had Second Reading, the whole thing went through like a tablet of stone. I make this plea: can we avoid that in future, because it is an abuse of Parliament?
Secondly, what are the modalities of deciding what time should be made available in those circumstances, bearing in mind that minority parties as well as the official Opposition and some anoraks like myself are interested in these matters? How are we to deal with the occasions when there is a need for expedition, but not abuse?
Mr. Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He provided some good examples of where sensible flexibility is required. In the first instance, programming was, I concede, undesirable. It is also the case that the House is learning how to use programming in a constructive way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, like all parliamentary procedures, it is a matter of evolution. However, if Opposition Members set their faces against it and deny it the opportunity to work, scrutiny—together with the reputation of the House—will suffer.
Mr. Tyler rose—
Mr. Woolas: I shall give way just one more time, but then I must finish my speech.
Mr. Tyler: As a former member of the Whips Office—I, too, have been a Whip—I would like to ask how the Minister reacts to an extremely important recommendation from the Chairman of Ways and Means, which is recorded in the report. He said that
"detailed programming should not be left in the hands of the usual channels".
What is the Minister's response?
Mr. Woolas: My first response is to say what existed before programming. We have heard examples from pre-1992 Sessions and I understand that I was criticised earlier by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—I was not present, but I bow to the hon. Gentleman's greater knowledge. What happened in the earlier period was that the usual channels ipso facto agreed the programming and timetabling of Bills. Secondly, if knives are imposed by a majority on a Committee that is unwilling and there is no consensus for that action, the likely outcome—experience on the planning Bill bears this out—is that it will not work well. It will not result in better scrutiny. However, I agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who agrees in principle with timetabling, that if we are committed to making it work and we learn from our experience—the Hunting Bill is one of many examples—we can move forward together. I must now make progress with my speech.
The Modernisation Committee report is helpful in setting out how we can improve programming for our benefit in the House. It is very strong in its support for the principle, but I believe that the core recommendation is in paragraph 10 on page 5, which points out that the principle is fine, but improvements need to be made. That is the basis on which we bring the motion before the House today.
I invite the House, especially hon. Members opposed to today's motion, to consider the consequences of not having programming. We had some examples of that earlier today. As the report says, there was never a "golden age" of full scrutiny of all clauses of all Bills. On the contrary, there was deep and widespread dissatisfaction with the haphazard nature of scrutiny. That frustration was the motivation that led to the introduction of programming.
In any event, the programming and timetabling of Bills is only one part of the jigsaw of modernisation. I know that the word "modernisation" sends the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst into apoplexy—[Interruption.]—so let me use a different turn of phrase. Making House of Commons procedures relevant to the British public is, I believe, the same as modernisation. Op position Members are kidding themselves if they believe that the antiquated methods of discussion—through-the-night debates, speeches that nobody listened to—will make the average voter in our constituencies respect this place more. People do not come up to me on the streets of Oldham and say, "Phil, that was a great intervention at 2.30 in the morning on the National Minimum Wage Bill". They are more likely to say, "What on earth are you lot doing down there, behaving like that?". Programming and modernisation represent a serious attempt to reconnect Parliament with the people whom we represent, and the programming motion should be seen in that context.

991
The Government have improved scrutiny. In this Session, nine Bills have received pre-legislative scrutiny. Does the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst commit himself to adopting pre-legislative scrutiny, in the unhappy event that his party were to take power, or would he prefer, as l suspect is the case, to do away with pre-legislative scrutiny because he thinks it is a modern innovation that has no place in our procedures? It would be interesting to hear his reply in future debates.
The Government introduced Westminster Hall, allowing Back Benchers more opportunities for Adjournment debates. From my experience of trying to make programming work in my previous designation in the Whips Office, I can tell Opposition Members that if they think the usual channels are happy with all the new procedures, they misunderstand the position. Those procedures create a greater workload for Ministers. The number of times that Government or Opposition Back Benchers have forced Ministers to come to the House has increased dramatically since the introduction of Westminster Hall. It is a shame that hon. Members do not take it as seriously as they should.
What frustrates the House on all sides is not the sensible timetabling of Bills, but the attitude of those on the Opposition Front Bench who agree, often in private, with a sensible timetable for debate, and who often agree with the measure before the House or the Committee, and then detain the House late at night with pointless votes against programming out of some misguided sense of opposition. If they oppose the measure, that is what they should vote against. They should not delay the House by debating how it should be debated. It is such Opposition antics, not the sensible timetabling of Bills, that bring the House into disrepute.
The shadow Leader of the House gave the game away in his infamous "back of the taxi" memo. He may be coming to the end of his time as shadow Leader of the House, although I genuinely hope not. Let me remind the House what he said at the beginning of his time as shadow Leader of the House, when he wrote the infamous memo to his Chief Whip:
"We should be more discriminating in targeting Bills … to ensure that the controversial Bills cannot be completed".
If one sets out with the objective of opposing a Bill come what may, of course one will oppose in principle the sensible timetabling of Bills, but is it not better to adopt the philosophy of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, who has pointed out in the House and elsewhere that strong and sensible argument is the strongest weapon of opposition, not filibustering and delay, which in my opinion bring us all into disrepute?
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who unfortunately could not be present for the debate, has asked:
"Are we just going to get consumed with a rather claustrophobic atmosphere—the in-bred atmosphere of Westminster—and to believe that we are achieving things just by staying up late at night making speeches that nobody ever listens to?"
992
That is the alternative to timetabling [Interruption.] I hear it rather unkindly suggested that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells may know about that, but his point is nevertheless valid.
Do we want to go back to legislating without timetabling, when the House was brought into disrepute by schoolboy antics? I respect, as does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the fact that the Opposition have a duty to oppose. That is the nature of our parliamentary democracy, but it is facile to waste the time of hon. Members. How many hours have been spent not on opposing or scrutinising Government proposals, but on arguing about when hon. Members are to argue about when they are to argue about them? We saw that yesterday, in a wholly false debate about the Water Bill, when we could have spent the time discussing other important matters. Hon. Gentlemen criticise my right hon. Friend for not allocating sufficient time, but it is now two hours before the moment of interruption, and where are the hon. Members who oppose the heavy-handed Government with their large majority? I suggest that some are Upstairs celebrating, and some are Downstairs commiserating. Those are not good opposition tactics; they serve to discredit the House.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he wishes to consider measures to help to make programming work and the hon. Member for Witney made some sensible suggestions. He made a valid point about late amendments. Sensible timetabling is contradicted by the introduction of many late amendments, whether by the Government or the Opposition. The report makes that point and says that the situation should be improved, but many of the Bills that we debate do not have knives, even under the programming regime. Although the hon. Gentleman made some sensible points, I reject the central thrust of his argument, which was opposition in principle to the idea of programming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage made some strong points, but she also said that she was critical of the current operation of timetabling and wanted to improve it. Many other hon. Members agreed. However, I agree with my hon. Friend's central point. I, too, was on the Committee that considered the national minimum wage. It sat for 36 hours, not to improve scrutiny but for filibuster after filibuster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made her opposition clear and I respect that, given her vast experience of debates in the House. However, I disagree with her strongly on one point. She said that parliamentary procedures evolved out of a concern that they were relevant to the people. I do not believe that that was the case. Parliamentary procedures evolved from the practices of the gentlemen's clubs of the Mall and the courtrooms and restaurants of west London. The reason we started at 2.30 in the afternoon was not to make us relevant to the textile workers of Oldham or the railway workers of Crewe; it was to fit in with a timetable that is wholly alien to a modern democracy. While I respect my hon. Friend's views, I reject that argument.

993
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) agreed in principle with the report—I thank him for that—but pointed out several dangers and problems that might arise. He reminded the House, wisely and with great pertinence, especially for newer Members such as myself, of the dangers of not having programming. I respect him for that argument.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) pointed to some improvements that could be made. I disagree with his point about the House of Lords. I shall not delay the House further with long lists of how—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, perhaps I will then. The facts from this Session show that, on average, the House of Commons spends longer on Second Reading than the House of Lords. On average, the House of Commons spends longer in Committee than the House of Lords. On average, time spent on Report is broadly comparable between the two Houses. I concede that it is slightly longer in the House of Lords, but that is because of the way in which the House of Lords takes amendments on Report. On average, the House of Commons spends more time considering Lords' amendments than the House of Lords spends covering Commons' amendments. Line-by-line scrutiny does not exist and never has existed. It is a myth that programming in this House is forcing the other place into spending more time on scrutiny. We know what is happening: it is political opposition. I respect it for that, but let us be honest about it.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, with the great experience that he brings to this matter, said that he has nothing in principle against the motions. I share his view that all those who favour programming want to see it improved.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, in a strong and passionate speech, said that he did not accept the principle of programming. We must respect him for that, but I hope that I can reassure him by saying that programming is not a heavy-handed, irresponsible use of our majority, but an attempt to improve matters for Back Benchers and Front Benchers on both sides of the House, and—most importantly—to make the House of Commons relevant to, and understood by, the people of this country.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 87.

Division No.352]

[4:04 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Atkins, Charlotte

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Austin, John

Bradshaw, Ben

Bailey, Adrian

Brennan, Kevin

Baird, Vera

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Banks, Tony

Barnes, Harry

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Barron, rh Kevin

Battle, John

Browne, Desmond

Bayley, Hugh

Bryant, Chris

Beard, Nigel

Buck, Ms Karen

Beckett, rh Margaret

Burden, Richard

Bell, Stuart

Byers, rh Stephen

Benn, rh Hilary

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Berry, Roger

Casale, Roger

Betts, Clive

Caton, Martin

Blackman, Liz

Challen, Colin

994

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Chaytor, David

Illsley, Eric

Clapham, Michael

Ingram, rh Adam

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Jenkins, Brian

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Coaker, Vernon

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Jowell, rh Tessa

Cohen, Harry

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Coleman, Iain

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Colman, Tony

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Connarty, Michael

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Cooper, Yvette

Kemp, Fraser

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Khabra, Piara S.

Cranston, Ross

Kidney, David

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Darling, rh Alistair

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

David, Wayne

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Dawson, Hilton

Lepper, David

Dean, Mrs Janet

Leslie, Christopher

Dhanda, Parmjit

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Linton, Martin

Donohoe, Brian H.

Love, Andrew

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Drew, David (Stroud)

McAvoy, Thomas

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McCabe, Stephen

Edwards, Huw

McCafferty, Chris

Efford, Clive

MacDonald, Calum

Ellman, Mrs Louise

McDonnell, John

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

MacDougall, John

Etherington, Bill

McGrady, Eddie

Farrelly, Paul

McIsaac, Shona

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

McKechin, Ann

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McNulty, Tony

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Follett, Barbara

McWalter, Tony

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McWilliam, John

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Mahmood, Khalid

Mandelson, rh Peter

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gerrard, Neil

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Gilroy, Linda

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Miller, Andrew

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Moffatt, Laura

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mole, Chris

Grogan, John

Moran, Margaret

Hain, rh Peter

Morgan, Julie

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mountford, Kali

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Mudie, George

Hanson, David

Munn, Ms Meg

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

O'Hara, Edward

Hepburn, Stephen

O'Neill, Martin

Heppell, John

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Hesford, Stephen

Perham, Linda

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Picking, Anne

Hinchliffe, David

Pickthall, Colin

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Plaskitt, James

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pollard, Kerry

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Howells, Dr. Kim

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Humble, Mrs Joan

Prosser, Gwyn

995

Purchase, Ken

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Quinn, Lawrie

Timms, Stephen

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Tipping, Paddy

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Ruane, Chris

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Ruddock, Joan

Trickett, Jon

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Salter, Martin

Walley, Ms Joan

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wareing, Robert N.

Sawford, Phil

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Shaw, Jonathan

Watts, David

Sheridan, Jim

White, Brian

Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Smith rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Wills, Michael

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Soley, Clive

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Southworth, Helen

Woolas, Phil

Speller, rh John

Worthington, Tony

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Wright, David (Telford)

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Wyatt, Derek

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Taylor. Dan (Stockton S)

Gillian Merron

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Amess, David

Horam, John (Orpington)

Arbuthnot, rh James

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Baldry, Tony

Jack, rh Michael

Barker, Gregory

Jenkin, Bernard

Baron, John(Billericay)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Bercow, John

Lansley, Andrew

Beresford, Sir Paul

Leigh, Edward

Blunt, Crispin

Letwin rh Oliver

Boswell, Tim

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Lilley, rh Peter

Brady, Graham

Loughton, Tim

Burt, Alistair

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Butterfill, John

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Cameron, David

Maclean, rh David

Cash, William

McLoughlin, Patrick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Maples, John

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brain

Collins, Tim

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

O' Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Ottaway, Richard

Paterson, Owen

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Pickles, Eric

Randall, John

Djanogly, Jonathan

Redwood, rh John

Fabricant, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Roberston, Angus (Moray)

Roberston, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Forth, rh Eric

Francois, Mark

Roberston, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Garnier, Edward

Rosindell, Andrew

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Ruffley, David

Goodman, Paul

Selous, Andrew

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Shepherd, Richard

Grayling, Chris

Shelman, Mrs Caroline

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Stanley, rh Sir John

Gummer, rh John

Steen, Anthony

Hague, rh William

Syms, Robert

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Tredinnick, David

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

996

Tyrie, Andrew

Wilshire, David

Waterson, Nigel

Young, rh Sir George

Watkinson, Angela

Whittingdale, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Wiggin, Bill

Mr. George Osborne and

Wilkinson, John

Mr. Mark Hoban

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That Orders A to I relating to the Programming of Bills, made by the House on 28th June 2001, and programme orders of the current session of Parliament relating to bills which are carried over to the next session, shall continue to have effect in the next session of Parliament.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Order relating to Deferred Divisions, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session Parliament.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 80.

Division No.353]

[4:16 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cotter, Brian

Atkins, Charlotte

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Austin, John

Cranston, Ross

Bailey, Adiran

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Baird, Vera

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Banks, Tony

Darling, rh Alistair

Barnes, Harry

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Barron, rh Kevin

David, Wayne

Battle, John

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Beard, Nigel

Dawson, Hilton

Beckett, rh Margaret

Dean, Mrs Janet

Benn, rh Hilary

Denham, rh John

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Berry, Roger

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Betts, Clive

Donohoe, Brian H.

Blackman, Liz

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Drew, David (Stroud)

Bradley, Petter (The Wrekin)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bradshaw, Ben

Edwards, Huw

Brenna, Kevin

Efford, Clive

Brown, rh Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

Etherington, Bill

Farrelly, Paul

Browne, Desmond

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Bryant, Chris

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Buck, Ms Karen

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Burden, Richard

Follett, Barbara

Byers, rh Stephen

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Casale, Roger

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Caton, Martin

Gerrard, Neil

Challen, Colin

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Gidley, Sandra

Chaytor, David

Gilroy, Linda

Clapham, Michael

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Grogan, John

Hain, rh Petter

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Coaker, Vernon

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hanson, David

Cohen, Harry

Harris, Tom (Glassgow Cathcart)

Coleman, Iain

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Colman, Tony

Connarty, Michael

Heath, David

Cooper, Yvette

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

997

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mountford, Kali

Hepburn, Stephen

Mudie, George

Heppell, John

Munn, Ms Meg

Hesford, Stephen

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hinchliffe, David

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hopkins, Kelvin

O'Hara, Edward

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

O'Neill, Martin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Perham, Linda

Howells, Dr. Kim

Picking, Anne

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pickthall, Colin

Humble, Mrs Joan

Plaskitt, James

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Illsley, Eric

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Ingram, rh Adam

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Jenkins, Brian

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Pugh, Dr. John

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Purchase, Ken

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Jowell, rh Tessa

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Kaufman, rh Gerald

Ruane, Chris

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Ruddock, Joan

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

Kemp, Fraser

Kidney, David

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Salter, Martin

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Sanders, Adrian

Sarwar, Mohammad

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Sawford, Phil

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Shaw, Jonathan

Lammy, David

Sheridan, Jim

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Simon, SiÔn (B ham Erdington)

Lepper, David

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Leslie, Christopher

Skinner, Dennis

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Linton, Martin

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Love, Andrew

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

McAvoy, Thomas

Soley, Clive

McCabe, Stephen

Southworth, Helen

McCafferty, Chris

Spellar, rh John

McDonagh, Siobhain

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

MacDonald, Calum

Stinchcombe, Paul

McDonnell, John

Stoate, Dr. Howard

MacDougall, John

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

McGrady, Eddie

Stuart, Ms Gisela

McIsaac, Shona

Stunell, Andrew

McKechin, Ann

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mackinlay, Andrew

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

McNulty, Tony

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

McWalter, Tony

Timms, Stephen

McWilliam, John

Tipping, Paddy

Mahmood, Khalid

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Mandelson, rh Peter

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Trickett, Jon

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Miller, Andrew

Walley, Ms Joan

Moffatt, Laura

Wareing, Robert N.

Mole, Chris

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Moran, Margaret

Watts, David

Morgan, Julie

White, Brian

998

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Worthington, Tony

Wicks, Malcolm

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Wright, David (Telford)

Wills, Michael

Wyatt, Derek

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Mr. Nick Ainger and

Woolas, Phil

Gillian Merron

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Leigh, Edward

Amess, David

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Ancram, rh Michael

Lilley, rh Petter

Arbuthnot, rh James

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Barker, Gregory

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Baron, John (Billericay)

Maclean, rh David

Bercow, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Beresford, Sir Paul

Maples, John

Blunt, Crispin

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Boswell, Tim

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Brady, Graham

Ottaway, Richard

Burt, Alistair

Paterson, Owen

Butterfill, John

Pickles, Eric

Cameron, David

Randall, John

Cash, William

Redwood, rh John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Robathan, Andrew

Robertson, Angus (Moray)

Collins, Tim

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Davies, Question (Grantham & Stamford)

Roberston, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Djanogly, Jonathan

Rosindell, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Russel, Bob (Colchester)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Selous, Andrew

Shepherd, Richard

Forth, rh Eric

Spicer, Sir Michael

Fox, Dr. Liam

Stanley, rh Sir John

Francois, Mark

Steen, Anthony

Garnier, Edward

Syms, Robert

Goodman, Paul

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Tredinnick, David

Grayling, Chris

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Tyrie, Andrew

Grieve, Dominic

Waterson, Nigel

Hawkins, Nick

Watkinson, Angela

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Whittingdale, John

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Wiggin Bill

Hogg, rh Douglas

Wilkinson, John

Horam, John (Orpington)

Wilshire, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Young, rh Sir George

Jack, rh Michael

Jenkin, Bernard

Tellers for the Noes:

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Mr. George Osborne and

Lansley, Andrew

Mr. Mark Hoban

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Order relating to Deferred Divisions, made by the House on 28th June 2001, shall continue to have effect in the next session Parliament.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  IMMIGRATION (LEAVE TO REMAIN)
  Ordered,
  That the Immigration (Leave to Remain) (Fees) Regulations 2003, (S.I., 2003, No. 1711) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Bombardier Rail Manufacturing
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
4.28 pm
Mr. Bob Laxton: II am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House a matter of vital importance to my constituents and to others in adjoining constituencies in Derbyshire.
Derby has been at the centre of train manufacturing for 163 years. It is a long and proud tradition. Its economic growth has been due in part to its location in the middle of England and to the strategic importance that that gave it in a country that was building trains as it raced into the age of industrialisation.
According to Brian Radford, a local historian and writer in Derby, from 1839 to the 1960s, most trains had to go through Derby to go from the south to the northeast or Scotland. That served only to convince me as I grew up in Derby that Derby truly was the centre of the universe.
Since the 1960s, when the manufacture of locomotives moved to Crewe, and later, when privatisation saw the growth of intense international competition, Derby has seen a slow decline in its railway fortunes. Following the closure of Alstom's site in Washwood Heath in Birmingham, Bombardier in Derby is now the only train manufacturing company left in the UK.
In July, the Strategic Rail Authority gave the TransPennine franchise to FGK, a consortium consisting of First Group, a British company, and Kelios, a French company. For eight years from 2004, FGK will run trains from Hull, Leeds, Durham and Sheffield to Manchester, Liverpool and Lancaster. Siemens and Bombardier came forward when FGK announced that it was accepting bids to supply the new franchise with 56 new diesel-electric trains. Siemens won the bid, which was a severe blow to Bombardier and train manufacturing in the UK. The bid was worth £200 million—more if a maintenance and logistical contract is included for the full 30-year life of the trains. Although Bombardier won an order worth £3.4 billion from London Underground in April, it will not start working on that 15-year contract until 2008, leaving a gap of about three years in its order book, from the end of 2004 to 2008.
To put that in perspective, when Alstom closed its Birmingham site in the summer, it had an order-book gap of six months. What chance does Bombardier stand with an order-book gap of 36 months? It has already said that it intends to review its European operations, and a gap in its order book could put Derby at the top of the list of sites for closure. It employs 1,800 people at its Litchurch lane plant in Derby. Moreover, it sources 80 per cent. of its manpower and materials in the UK, payment for which amounts to £450 million. A sum of £30 million is spent on its wage bill, while £50 million goes to suppliers within a 30-mile radius of Derby. Ten thousand people in the supply chain could be affected by closure of the site.
By contrast, the winning Siemens bid will result in the shell for British trains being created in the Czech Republic and the fittings being manufactured in
1000
Germany. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions has not yet visited Bombardier, but if she speaks to our hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who visited Derby in September, she would learn about the depth of feeling, both in Derby and well beyond, about a possible closure. I thank my local newspaper, the Derby Evening Telegraph, for the excellent and energetic campaign that it ran over the summer against the possible job losses at Bombardier.
That campaign was supported by more than 3,000 individuals, including people across the UK, in Argyll, Cumbria, Newcastle, and all over the world, in Australia, Vancouver in Canada, Michigan in the USA and, closer to home, Brittany in France. This is not just another loss of manufacturing jobs and Bombardier is not just another company manufacturing an obsolete product in an obsolete fashion. It is a high-quality company with highly skilled workers who are manufacturing something that I am certain the Government do not view as an obsolete mode of transport.
Laura Moffatt: I am grateful for an opportunity to contribute to this important debate. My hon. Friend knows that I went to Derby as a member of the Industry and Parliament Trust, and that we visited the Bombardier operation with the Go-Ahead Group to look at the way in which trains are manufactured. I was shocked at the excellence and cleanliness of Bombardier's fantastic operation and the way in which it attracted women into a heavy-engineering business. The loss of such an operation will be felt not just in his constituency but much further afield.
Mr. Laxton: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. No one could fail to be impressed by Bombardier's operation in the city of Derby. I well remember visiting the old loco and carriage-side works as a young person, and left feeling that I needed a scrub down, given all the oil, swarf and so on. Bombardier is a high-tech company—one feels that one could almost eat one's food off the floor. Manufacturing processes have been completely revolutionised over the years.
I have already mentioned that UK suppliers would be badly hit if Bombardier ceased manufacturing at the Litchurch lane site in Derby. A number of those suppliers are based in Derby. AVE Rail is based at the Bombardier site itself, and rents its building from the company, which seems logical as it sends 50 per cent. of its production to the Bombardier factory next door. AVE employs 160 people, and its work with Bombardier brings in £8 million a year.
Time 24 is a company that won the Derbyshire business of the year award in 2000. It manufactures the heating, lighting and air conditioning parts of Bombardier's trains. It employs just under 200 people, and 75 per cent. of its output goes to Bombardier. The impact of Bombardier's closure would ruin small and medium-sized companies, such as AVE Rail and Time 24, around the UK.
The Government have sought to tackle the chronic lack of investment in the railways dating back to the 1970s. The haphazard manner in which the railways were privatised did not help. However, many

1001
engineering companies that traditionally worked hand in hand with British Rail, and later with the privatised franchises, have survived well.
After the devastating decision by FGK to grant the order to Siemens, I received a letter from a Mr. A. J. Hough, the managing director of Engments, a Derby-based engineering company. He said that his company had "toughed out" the period after privatisation, when
"virtually no orders were placed, secure in the knowledge that the industry was in the position where new trains were desperately needed, and that new orders would be placed once the industry settled down after privatisation and establishment of the new Rail Franchises".
He went on to say that although
"the period of inactivity was extremely painful, we felt reasonably assured of a long term future".
The loss of up to 1,800 jobs at Bombardier is bad enough, but we could also be talking about up to 12,000 additional jobs in the supply chain if we consider the domino effect of the additional closure at Bombardier.
What is even more scandalous is that FGK has won the TransPennine franchise for only seven years. Beyond that, there is no guarantee that it will run the service. However, the Government, using British taxpayers' money, will have to underwrite—that is, guarantee—the purchase of rolling stock. A Department for Transport spokesperson, commenting on the decision by FGK to grant the contract to Siemens, said that the decision was "wholly" that of FGK. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, said in a letter that it is not the Strategic Rail Authority's business
"to influence bidders over the choice of suppliers or subcontractors".
That position has also been taken publicly by the head of the SRA. Richard Bowker.
If the long-term risk of the venture lies with the Government, should not they have a say in the decision on the bid? Why should the British taxpayer subsidise jobs at a Siemens plant in Germany, for example? That has already begun to happen. Soon after receiving a contract for work with London Underground, Alstom pulled out of the UK. If Bombardier closes its Derby site, all future orders for UK trains and underground trains will be manufactured by companies outside the UK.
Following the Bible of free-market economics and the law of comparative advantage only goes so far in improving the living standards of the British people. What is the true financial cost of Bombardier leaving? It is more than the value of the contract that we are losing and the consequent effects on the balance of payments. How many people will have to depend on benefits after leaving Bombardier? We all know from the Thatcher years that the social cost of unemployment is devastating, and we are still dealing with the effects of long-term unemployment 24 years after Mrs. Thatcher was elected. We need to take a hard look at how we go about allocating our railway franchises, and, subsequently, at how the companies that receive those franchises operate.
Mr. Mark Todd: Has my hon. Friend looked at how rail operators on the continent choose to manage their procurements? He may have
1002
seen examples of much tighter regulation that ensures that much of the work in replacement vehicles goes to local manufacturers.
Mr. Laxton: I thank my hon. Friend. I shall come to that issue, which has been a particular interest of mine, later in my speech. For sure, some of the comments are anecdotal, but they give a good flavour of the differences between our procurement procedures and those of some other European countries.
It is fair to say that we play by the rules that the European Union has set, but do all countries do the same? Let me give an example. The Derby Evening Telegraph sent one of its reporters out to Crespin in France, where Bombardier has a site. A Monsieur Louadoudi, who worked on the site, expressed horror that the UK Government could let trains that were to be used in England be built in another country and expressed fears that something similar to what happened to Bombardier could happen in Crespin. That seems unlikely, however, because France, Germany, Italy and Austria all stipulate that at least 60 per cent. of their trains must be made within their national borders. That explains why Bombardier has sites not only in France, but in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Sweden. None of the Governments of those countries would consider buying their trains from a company that intended to use foreign suppliers.
My local newspaper, the Derby Evening Telegraph, quoted me as saying that the UK plays cricket while our competitors play karate. Admittedly, that was an unfortunate slur on a Japanese art form that has rules as stringent, if not as strange, as those of cricket. What I am saying, though, is that other European Governments do not hesitate to muscle in if they see the need to protect their core infrastructure and industries. I am not advocating that the Government subsidise Bombardier—Bombardier has made it clear that it does not expect a subsidy— and I am certainly not advocating that the Government do as the French have, and buy a share in a company such as Alstom simply to sustain financially its manufacturing in France. I am advocating that the Government take a more active approach in ensuring that the UK maintains an industrial base.
Train operating companies in the UK do not have to think twice if the train that they have commissioned to be used by a UK passenger is manufactured in Derby or in, say, Bruges. Someone who works in the railway industry told me that when train companies made bids in countries such as France and Germany, the Governments of those countries repeatedly stressed to them that they should use local suppliers. I hope that the Government will seriously consider doing the same.
Train manufacturing is not simply a part of Derby's past—it is part of the UK's future. There is little point in investing additional money into raising the standards of vocational engineering courses and encouraging more students to take up this shortage occupation at degree level if we insist on exporting their jobs to other European countries.
It is well recognised that labour laws in the UK are more flexible than those of our continental European cousins. If the Government do not seek to tie the hands of international companies with inflexible labour laws, we should, for the sake of future generations, tie their

1003
hands in a different way. An international company that is granted a franchise should be made to carry out at least 50 per cent. or, better, 60 per cent. of its production within the UK. In its time, FGK has given two contracts to UK-based firms and two to overseas firms. As a Bombardier spokesperson said,
"It is now obvious that firms do not have to be based in the UK to win UK orders".
From Bombardier's point of view, there are a number of actions that it could take to save the Derby plant. It could delay the order placed by Govia, part of the southeast franchise, to reduce the gap in its order book—but it would be penalised contractually for doing so, and that would hit it hard financially. It could seek to bring forward its order to start the production of new London Underground trains that is due to start in 2008, but that would mean that completed trains would sit around idle without Bombardier receiving payment for them. Again, that would financially penalise the company; and the question would arise of what work Bombardier would have from 2008 to replace the London Underground slot.
Bombardier could look to its European network to transfer any excess work from a European site to Derby. That was done in the past at its Wakefield site, which had such a tight deadline for meeting an order from Virgin Cross Country that work was moved to Bombardier in Belgium and France. Colin Walton, Bombardier's vice-president of sales, mentioned that possibility. However, in view of a more recent briefing by the company, I understand that it is a remote possibility as there are other Bombardier sites in Europe with gaps in their order books.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this issue which, as he rightly said, is causing great concern in his constituency and throughout the southern part of the county. Does he agree that as the days go by, uncertainty about when decisions will be taken is causing increasing concern? Members on both sides would like to ask the Minister to say to the company that it should let people know what is going on. The hon. Gentleman made several points that would answer some of the problems that are perceived as a serious threat. I agree with him that we must put pressure on the company to come to a conclusion and show those who have worked loyally for it that there is a bright future.
Mr. Laxton: I thank the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin). I understand that it is soon to become Derbyshire Dales, and not before time. I agree with him entirely. The situation is not being helped by the fact that the chief operating officer of Bombardier is constantly being quoted about overcapacity in Europe and is actively looking at the closure of sites in Germany and the United Kingdom. All that adds to uncertainty about what will happen, whether the gap will be plugged and whether the work force will have jobs. To be absolutely fair to the work force, from talking to trade unions it seems that they perhaps take the view, "We have been here before and survived." They seem reasonably buoyant, but as time goes by they are bound to get stressed out from all the doubt and indecision.
1004
Can the Minister give us an indication of what help the Government can give Bombardier? Will they help it look for work from Scotland, Ireland and other parts of the world? Bombardier is a world-class company with a world-class work force in Derby. I hope that the Government recognise that and will offer some help, perhaps in the form of export guarantees to assist Bombardier win work from abroad or bringing forward orders to replace the high-speed 125 train.
As the hon. Gentleman said, uncertainty is the real difficulty. It is problematic for the work force. Close to 14,000 jobs are at stake. After 163 years of train manufacturing in Derby, is it going to disappear and will there no longer be a train manufacturing or assembly site anywhere in the United Kingdom? Will all future orders for British Rail and the underground network have to be sourced and built outside the United Kingdom? Surely not.
4.48 pm
The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on securing this debate, doing a good job representing Bombardier and its work force in this House and working hard to convince us that Derby is the centre of the world. As I am outnumbered in the Chamber, I will concentrate on Bombardier as opposed to the first part of his speech.
I am aware of reports in the media suggesting that Bombardier is looking at closures in Germany and the United Kingdom. I can assure the House that my officials are in regular contact with Bombardier's senior management team in the United Kingdom. Recently, I met my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, who has visited Bombardier. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit it, but I have been fortunate to visit manufacturing companies in Derby, which I consider to be important. In discussions with my hon. Friend, I was able to discuss the situation at Bombardier and wider issues concerning rolling stock procurement—issues that we both take extremely seriously.
The most recent announcement from Bombardier was made on 7 October, and while I fully understand local concerns about the future of the Derby plant the—hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) made a very fair point in that regard—it might be useful to recap on what the company has actually said, against a background of the general over-capacity in the rolling stock sector in Europe. Paul Tellier, Bombardier's Canadian chief executive, said that the company needed to cut its overheads in Europe to remain competitive. It has started an audit of its sites, and consolidation to remove excess capacity is expected quite soon, possibly starting in the new year. He has mentioned plants in Germany and the UK. However, until that review is completed, there will be no further comment from the company.
I fully appreciate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North has said, this will be a cause for some anxiety in Derby, but there has been no suggestion at this stage that the Derby plant will be closed. It would therefore be premature to talk about major job losses in the rail supply chain. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, however, that the UK needs high-tech, high-

1005
value, high-skill manufacturers such as Bombardier. I very much hope that Bombardier and companies like it will form the backbone of the future of manufacturing industry in this country, not least for some of the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt).
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North pushes us on the position with regard to train manufacture, and I hope that I can reassure him that the Government want train manufacturing in the UK to have a strong future. I would certainly not wish to see the end of train-making in this country, and, as my hon. Friend has ably pointed out, continued production at the Derby site is hugely important to the locality, the industry and the supply chain. Furthermore, the company is a major inward investor in the UK, with more than 5,000 people employed in its rail business. When it acquired the Adtranz train building operation in 2001, it quickly resolved inherited problems and made an excellent job of turning round the company. It is making a significant contribution to improved efficiency and standards in the UK rail network.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the TransPennine express order, and I understand that it will have come as a disappointment to Bombardier, and to the work force and unions, that it did not win the order for those trains. There is strong competition for all rolling stock orders, particularly in the light of the over-capacity in Europe at the moment. Procurement decisions are for the train operators, not for Ministers, but I know that the loss of that order has understandably led to a great deal of concern in the Derby area. That is why, at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport has reviewed the award of that contract. He was satisfied that fair and open competition had been conducted, and that the decision on manufacture would deliver the desired value for money required by the Strategic Rail Authority. In spite of the setback, Bombardier has an excellent track record and a highly skilled work force, and I look forward to it winning further orders.
The Derby plant is currently embarking on an 18-month period of unprecedented production volumes. It is taking on staff to cope with the increased output needed to deliver a large order of new Electrostar trains next year to replace slam-door trains in London and the south-east. I know that Bombardier has also won contracts for Nottingham trams and large orders for London Underground, to be delivered from 2008 onwards. This is a tribute to Bombardier's management and its work force. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, however, the Derby site has a gap in its order book between 2005 and 2007, and we need to put that into context.
The company is currently doing well. Nevertheless, I fully understand local concerns. I am aware of Bombardier's importance to the Derby area. It is a major employer providing valuable skilled jobs, including, as my hon. Friend said, jobs in the rail supply chain. I also know that Bombardier's management is actively trying to plug the gap, and is investigating the scope for rescheduling existing orders. The company is a major player, highly successful and well managed, and more than capable of winning further contracts.
1006
My hon. Friend mentioned support for exports, and I shall say something about that shortly. He also raised the issue of rescheduling. Although, as he said, considerable difficulties are involved, I am sure that sensible proposals from the company would be considered, although I make no commitments.
It has been suggested, although not, I think, by my hon. Friend today, that the problems of Bombardier and all UK train manufacturers are caused by our failure to invest in the industry. That is not true: rail investment is running at unprecedented levels. Between 2000 and 2010, there will be £33 billion of direct investment. By 2005, the Government will be spending twice as much on rail as we did in 2001. This year we are spending £73 million a week on improving the railways, and bringing in a similar amount from the private sector.
Rolling stock is getting its fair share of that money. We are in the middle of the biggest rolling-stock replacement programme ever seen in this country: some 40 per cent. is being replaced between 2000 and 2005. Since 1997 there have been 41 rolling-stock orders, representing nearly 4,500 vehicles. It is certainly not true that all the business has been going abroad, although I will deal later with some of my hon. Friend's worries in that regard. No fewer than 35 of those 41 orders have been won by UK-based companies, which means that three quarters of all vehicles ordered since 1997 have been built here. Bombardier has been much the most successful single firm, having won 28 orders and built nearly 2,500 vehicles—more than twice as many as its nearest rivals.
My hon. Friend is worried about the scope for ensuring that UK investment benefits UK industry, but the answer cannot be insisting that rolling stock for use in the UK must be built here. Naturally people ask why we should insist that contracts go to UK manufacturers if taxpayers' money is used to buy the trains, whether directly or through the subsidies paid to train operators. The Government have a role in ensuring that there is a full and fair procurement process, but they cannot dictate where orders are placed or where vehicles are manufactured. The placing of orders is a matter for the train operators, and in many cases European Union procurement rules mean that orders cannot simply be directed to UK builders. Of course we want to see UK companies winning UK orders, but we also have a responsibility to taxpayers and fare-paying passengers to ensure that we get the best possible value for money when investing in new rolling stock.
Competitive bids are the best way of guaranteeing that. Artificially restricting the number of firms allowed to bid is a sure way of driving costs up and getting poor value for money. It has been suggested, however, that even if we insist on awarding our own contracts fairly, the procedure may not always be followed so scrupulously elsewhere. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), and the trade unions have raised it as well. We are taking it very seriously. The Department for Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry are to look into the award of rolling-stock contracts in other EU states over the past seven years to establish whether a clear pattern can be identified. It is crucial that there be a level playing field across Europe.

1007
As I have already pointed out, most trains bought by British train operating companies in recent years have been built in Britain, but this is an area that warrants further investigation. The Chancellor announced in his recent speech at Bournemouth that the Government would review UK businesses' experiences, good and bad, of competing for public procurement contracts in other EU countries—
Mr. McLoughlin: The Minister has just made an important announcement. Can she give us any idea how long that inquiry will take, and when she expects the inquiry involving both the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport to report?
Jacqui Smith: I cannot give an undertaking now about how long the inquiry will take because, as hon. Members have already pointed out, part of what we are talking about is people's feelings about the process. We want to try to identify where the evidence is, and decide what that evidence suggests to us.
As I was saying, the Chancellor said that the Government would review UK businesses' experiences, good and bad, of competing for public procurement contracts in other EU countries. That will include their concerns about unfair application of rules, different approaches to the application of the single market and international rules on public procurement, and the impact that those have on contract opportunities for British manufacturers and their workers. The Chancellor will announce details of the review later in the year.
From the success that Bombardier has enjoyed in recent years, I am convinced that its staff and management are well able to secure orders provided that they can compete fairly for them, and I am clear that ensuring that it can do so will prove a more effective way of securing the firm's future than seeking to skew the system artificially in its favour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North also touched on a broader issue of public procurement. The award of rolling stock contracts is, as I have said, a commercial matter for transport network providers, but the Government have a role in ensuring that an open and competitive procurement process occurs, while not prescribing where orders should be placed or stock manufactured.
We are keen to find ways of improving the way in which public procurement processes operate in this country, so that our manufacturing companies have the best possible opportunity to compete for business while delivering the best possible value for the taxpayer. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
1008
Trade and Industry hosted an event on 3 September that brought together representatives of manufacturing business, trade unions and Government to discuss practical steps that we can take to achieve that.
That event, in which Bombardier participated, explored a range of issues that could help business to respond effectively to public procurement needs—for example, through better forward planning, greater transparency and increased professionalism in procurement and innovation. The Department of Trade and Industry is working with the Treasury and the Office of Government Commerce to ensure that the themes that came out of that event are used to inform the work that the OGC is taking forward in formulating an action plan for improving public procurement.
Rail procurement by private sector operators was not a specific focus of the event, but I am sure that the lessons to be learned are equally applicable to private and public sector procurement.
My hon. Friend asked about support for the company with regard to exports. UK trade and investment officials stand ready to provide help and advice, and are already in regular contact with Bombardier UK at the highest level. Indeed, Bombardier serves on UK Trade and Investment's rail sector advisory group, which helps to formulate UK Government export strategy, particularly in delivering Government support where the UK rail industry believes we can add value to its efforts in pursuing international business. I hope that, not only through that contribution but through the support that we can provide, that will help with those important export opportunities that my hon. Friend highlighted.
I welcome my hon. Friend's raising this issue, which, as he and others have pointed out, is clearly of importance to the company and its Derby work force. I have given, I hope, some sign of Government support and action, and some reassurance about the current status of decision making, but that does not mean that there is any room for complacency. I shall certainly monitor the situation closely, and my officials will continue to work with the company on its future strategy.
I must applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend, who is not only acting as a very important ambassador for the company and its work force, but talking to leading figures in the rail industry supply chain to try to help the company win further orders. That is practical and important work, and I can assure my hon. Friend of the Government's support in trying to find a way to achieve what we all want to see, which is the continuing efficient production of trains in his Derby constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Five o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOE BENTON in the Chair]

Export Controls
[Relevant documents: First joint report from the Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry Committees, Session 2002–03, on the Government's proposals for secondary legislation under the Export Control Act 2002, HC 620, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5988; and the second joint report, Session 2002–03, Strategic Export Controls—Annual Report for 2001, Licensing Policy and Policy Scrutiny, HC 474, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 5943.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Roger Berry: It is a pleasure to open this debate on the latest two reports of the Quadripartite Committee.
I am aware that the Select Committee on International Development meets at 3.15 pm, and that some members of that Committee want to speak in this debate. I will therefore try to be brief and speak for only 15 or 20 minutes to enable colleagues to contribute to the debate before they have to leave. If there is time later in the debate, I might, with permission, be able to finish what I had planned to say.
I thank my colleagues on the Committee for their efforts in producing yet another unanimous report. I also thank our Clerks for their excellent drafting and advice, and all those who gave written and oral evidence to the Committee, especially Saferworld, Oxfam, the United Kingdom working group on arms, the Defence Manufacturers Association, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Foreign Secretary.
The Committee again congratulates the Government on the significant progress that they have made in recent years in many areas of arms export control, including the development of consolidated criteria, the introduction of the ban on the export of torture equipment, the Landmines Act 1998, the Export Control Act 2002, and their annual reports, which improve and become more helpful every year and have facilitated greater transparency and accountability.
On behalf of the Committee, I acknowledge yet again the significant progress that has been made in recent years in opening up this important debate on arms export control policy. However, serious issues remain, which the Committee and others outside this place would like the Government to address, such as: licensed production overseas; prior parliamentary scrutiny; the implications for licence decisions of the "war on terror"; the application of end-use conditions; and brokering and trafficking.
I doubt that anyone would argue with the statement that the need for rigorous control of the international arms trade has never been greater. Those who have read
338WH
the recent report published by Oxfam and Amnesty International, "Shattered Lives", will have had that need reconfirmed in their minds. Every year, more than 500,000 people are killed, and thousands are maimed and forced from their homes. We want to be assured that our Government are doing everything possible to end that situation.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I recognise the case that Oxfam and others are making, but the hon. Gentleman should be clear that we already have a rigorous arms export control regime, and that our defence exporters are responsible people. When he links our attempts to engage in export control and the wilful distribution of low-level weapons that cause mayhem in other countries, the public might think that he is connecting that trade with British exporters, when there is little evidence that any British exporter is involved.
Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman well knows my views on the matter. Not only do I recognise the legitimate business activities of UK companies that export arms lawfully, but I have argued, and will repeat today, that the UK has the toughest arms export control regime in Europe. Indeed, I have just congratulated the Government on that very policy. However, I return to the point that no one, having read the report published by Oxfam and Amnesty International, can seriously disagree with the proposition that, given the slaughter and maiming that occur as a result of the use of unlawful weapons, we should have greater control over the international arms trade.
There are more selfish reasons why we should control the arms trade rigorously. When a country is engaged in conflict, it is natural to ask who supplied the other side with the weapons. When a country or a group of countries is concerned about the threat of terrorism, and the fight against it, it is perfectly legitimate to ask who is supplying arms to the terrorists. Of course we want an assurance that our Government are doing everything possible to ensure that arms do not get to terrorists in situations in which the UK Government is able to exercise controls. I do not apologise for saying that any sensible person would wish to see a rigorous regime of international arms trade control.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has missed my point. We know that Britain is the second largest exporter of defence equipment in the world—our major companies are represented in constituencies all over the United Kingdom. I ask him to confirm that he recognises not only that the Government are doing their bit but that our arms exporters are responsible people, who share his concerns and mine.
Mr. Berry: I have already referred to the Defence Manufacturers Association and expressed gratitude for its evidence to the Committee. I have constituents who work for BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and other companies with business interests in the arms trade. I do not criticise lawful arms exports, nor would I argue—I never have done—against the arms trade. All I am saying is that because of the problems in conflict zones around the world, and because of the war against terrorism, we need to address the issue very seriously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue and will not seek to put words in my mouth.

339WH
United Kingdom legislation regulates only the export of arms from the UK. There is nothing to prevent UK individuals or companies from exporting arms from some other country. It would be no surprise if I were to say that the first thing that someone might consider, if he thought that he would not get a licence to export arms from the UK, would be to try to do it from somewhere else. That is what arms brokers do. There are many examples, but I shall not bore hon. Members with more than the one that is frequently cited: the British company, Mil-Tec, which was linked with weapons shipments to Hutu militias responsible for the 1994 Rwanda massacre. Such activities remain perfectly legal under UK law if the weapons do not touch British soil.
The Quadripartite Committee's report on the draft Export Control Bill, published in May 2001, concluded that
"there are compelling arguments in favour of extending controls on brokering and trafficking to activities outside the country",
and recommended unanimously that
"controls be introduced on the activities of UK citizens and companies wherever they take place."
The Government seemed to arrive at the same conclusion before the 2001 general election, because there was a clear commitment in the manifesto:
"We will legislate to modernise the regulation of arms exports, with a licensing system to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located."
We used the phrase, "wherever they take place", whereas the Labour party manifesto used the phrase, "wherever they are located". I think that they mean the same thing, but others may disagree.
I welcome many things in the Export Control Act, as does the Committee, and in particular section 4, which for the first time gives the Government the power to impose controls on trafficking and brokering conducted by UK citizens anywhere in the world. That is a welcome and long overdue provision and should be applauded. Unfortunately, however, the Government's proposals show that they believe that the actions of UK citizens overseas should be regulated only where they relate to trade either in long-range missiles or in torture equipment, or to an embargoed destination. For trade in other controlled equipment, a licence will therefore be required only if the trafficking or brokering takes place in the UK.
That is a serious weakness in the Government's proposals under the Export Control Act. Such controls would not even attempt, for example, to prevent UK arms brokers overseas from transferring weapons such as machine guns to the war-torn Ivory Coast, to FARC rebels in Colombia or to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. There is no way that the Government's proposals would influence such transactions, nor would they control British arms dealers overseas who wanted to supply surface-to-air missiles, for example, to Governments who have been accused of sponsoring terrorism—such as, some would say, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia.
Those are examples of how the Government's proposals, welcome though they are, do not go far enough. It is the Committee's view that if national
340WH
controls alone are applied to trade in arms, those involved in repugnant aspects of the arms trade—I make this point for the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—will simply go abroad. That is why extraterritorial controls are necessary. The Committee argues that it would be a missed opportunity if the Government failed to regulate all UK citizens and companies involved in overseas trafficking and brokering activities that would not be granted a licence in the UK if conducted in the UK.
Mr. David Drew: Sometimes that can have a direct effect: for example, I have for many years been pursuing our licensing of arms exports to Morocco. In itself, Morocco will never cause us any particular problems, but it has illegally annexed Western Sahara. It is therefore right to ask whether any arms that are exported to Morocco can be used to subjugate Western Sahara. That is a direct example of why we need to be tough in controlling export licences.
Mr. Berry: I agree.
I should like briefly to address the Government's concerns about the Committee's position, so as to allow time to the Chairman of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), before he has to go. The Government have argued several things, one of which is that extraterritorial controls, on small arms for example, would be unenforceable owing to the lack of an international agreement, and that an attempt to enforce them would, under the circumstances,
"expose the futility of such a unilateral approach and undermine the credibility of our strategic export…control regime".
That was in their response to recommendation 7.
I have been impressed by the campaign run by Amnesty International and Oxfam in support of an international arms trade treaty. If the Minister wants to declare full Government support for that, no one in this Chamber will be happier than me. However, until we have an international arms trade treaty that addresses the issue, we must do the best we can. Of course, the Government are committed to attempting to enforce extraterritorial controls in relation to long-range missiles, torture equipment and exports to embargoed destinations. Why are the difficulties greater when enforcing extraterritorial controls for small arms? I do not believe that they are.
The United States applies full extraterritorial controls; so do a number of other countries. Do the Government believe that those controls seriously undermine the credibility of the US export control regime? If they do, given that we rightly export arms to the United States, perhaps questions should be asked. To use their own terminology, do they believe that the US approach is "futile"? I do not believe that it is.
It has also been said that it would be "unreasonable" to expect a UK citizen living and working abroad to be aware of UK laws on arms brokering of conventional weapons, small arms and the like to non-embargoed destinations. However, under the Government's own proposals, the same person would be expected to be aware that they would be subject to the new law with regard to the brokering of long-range missiles and their components, torture equipment and exports to UK-embargoed destinations.

341WH
I fail to understand how it can be reasonable to assume that UK citizens should be aware of some parts of the new legislation hut not others. With respect, I must say that the Government response is entirely unconvincing. In their response to recommendation 6, the Government went on to say that extraterritorial control would be likely to lead to
"conflicts of jurisdiction where other countries take a different view to us on individual cases".
However, the Government already propose to assert extraterritorial controls on the brokering of torture equipment and on destinations subject to a national embargo. In both cases there is no international consensus.
The concern about the conflict of jurisdiction is also thrown into doubt when we recognise that the Government address such concerns more sensibly in other areas. For example, under of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 bribery is a criminal offence under UK law when committed anywhere in the world by a UK citizen. Why is bribery more self-evidently a criminal act than arms dealing without a licence? Arms can kill. The indirect effect of bribery may be the same, but the direct effect certainly is not.
Why is asserting the legal right to prosecute UK citizens abroad when evidence shows that they have committed acts of bribery and corruption not a problem, whereas doing so when it comes to arms deals is? Do the Government seriously believe that it is easier to obtain a successful prosecution for corrupt payments to foreign officials than for unauthorised trafficking overseas? I do not believe that.
Finally, the Government argued that:
"Extending extra-territorial controls…would spread our licensing and enforcement resources ever more thinly, distracting our efforts from enforcing controls on the activities of greatest concern".
They have calculated, however, that the additional costs of their new controls would be £500,000 to £800,000 a year. Those are not large amounts, given our concerns about arms falling into the hands of terrorist organisations.
In the wake of the tragic shootings in Birmingham at the start of the year, the Government announced their intention to allocate significant resources to prevent the illicit trafficking of weapons in the UK. They have identified countries in central and eastern Europe as significant sources of such weapons. Those countries have also been identified as the sources of illicit weapons that are exported to conflict zones around the world.
The information and co-operation needed to prevent illicit arms entering the UK can and should be used to enforce controls on arms brokering overseas. Yesterday, the all-party group on gun crime published a significant report. One of its recommendations, which I believe was unanimous, was that part of the response to the gun crime problem in the UK should be full extraterritorial control on arms brokers.
I concentrate on this issue not because other issues are not important but because I passionately believe that the Government have yet to get it right. The Committee's unanimous view is that the Government should fulfil their election manifesto commitment to tackle those who engage in arms brokering and trafficking. I repeat that I very much welcome the
342WH
significant progress of the proposals for legislation, and 1 hope that no one will interpret my comments as a suggestion that the Government are making anything other than dramatic progress, which is long overdue. However, by failing to tackle brokering, their proposals fail to tackle one of the main causes of suffering and instability around the world, and that is why the issue should be addressed again.
2.51 pm
Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has chaired the Quadripartite Committee with great skill, and managed to steer it to produce an excellent report with unanimous conclusions. It is not easy to bring together four Select Committees with diverse views.
I apologise to you, Mr. Benton, and to the Minister and the Chamber, because the Select Committee on International Development is taking evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development this afternoon, so the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and I, and other members of the International Development Committee, will have to leave fairly soon to take that evidence. Therefore, I will keep my comments as brief as possible.
On Tuesday, the House debated African development strategies. During that debate, many hon. Members raised concerns about conflict constricting development. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development responded to those concerns at the close of the debate, when he stated that the Government
"are spending a total of £110 million specifically on conflict management and prevention activities. Much of that amount is spent on UN operations, such as those that took place in the Congo. However, we are also working on security sector reform, reducing the prevalence of small arms and carrying out peace-building work."—[Official Report, 4 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 767.]
I do not doubt that the UK is investing such sums for peacekeeping in Africa, but such spending is often negated by aspects of the UK's defence export control legislation, which hampers international development and allows for the proliferation of small arms in Africa and elsewhere.
Small arms account for nearly all combat deaths in developing countries. In some parts of Africa, every child appears to have an AK45. It is terrifying to hear what the Lord's Resistance Army has been doing in northern Uganda, and what was happening in Sierra Leone before the UN and British forces intervened. Practically every child seemed to have an AK45. Poverty fuels conflict and conflict fuels poverty. Civil wars leave countries poorer, with many more people living in absolute poverty. Almost all the countries that have recently had civil wars are developing countries. Nearly half the countries with the highest defence burden have the lowest indicators of development. Angola and Eritrea, for example, spend more than 20 per cent. of their gross domestic product on the military. Indonesia, the second highest recipient of net overseas aid, spends almost the same sum on its military forces as it receives in development aid. Pakistan's total defence spending consumes a third of its GDP at the same time as its servicing of debt on loans to finance defence purchases rises to 50 per cent.

343WH
Overall, some $22 billion a year is spent on arms by countries in Africa, Asia, the middle east and Latin America. That sum would enable those countries to be well on track to meet the millennium development goals by 2015—to achieve primary education for all and to meet the UN's targets to reduce infant and maternal mortality.
Those stark facts are highlighted not by the Quadripartite Committee's report but by "Shattered Lives: The Case for Tough International Arms Control", the report that was recently published by Oxfam and Amnesty International. I know that hon. Members are conscious of the report, much of which reinforces the conclusions and recommendations of the Quadripartite Committee's report.
The Committee has been speaking much the same language as the "Shattered Lives" report. One need only reflect on the Committee's recommendations in 2001 about sustainable development and enforcement of the EU's criterion 8 on arms exports, with respect to the Export Control Act 2002. Given much of the language used by Ministers during its passage—at least by Ministers from the Department for International Development—it is disconcerting that it is still necessary to raise concerns about the likely effectiveness of the 2002 Act and, now, its secondary legislation.
I shall not repeat what I said in the House on Third Reading. I simply say that putting sustainable development in the schedule to the Bill was a start, but was not nearly enough. From my perspective as Chairman of the International Development Committee, the Quadripartite Committee's report supports the case for robust checks on arms brokering and end use, and robust prior scrutiny.
I believe that the Quadripartite Committee's report supports many of the recommendations in "Shattered Lives". The Oxfam and Amnesty International campaign is sensibly seeking the adoption of the UN's arms trade treaty by the time of the 2006 UN review conference on small arms. Such a treaty would be legally binding and would help to ensure that the international community worked together to the same standards to prevent the irresponsible transfer of arms and to seek to prevent violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. The UK should champion such an arms trade treaty.
The Quadripartite Committee's report also demonstrates the need for the Government to take action domestically. It shows the need to create new international instruments to prevent irresponsible arms brokering, transporting and financing, and foreign licensed production, using the arms trade treaty criteria to define and prevent irresponsible transfers; to establish independent mechanisms to bring to justice, without delay, those who perpetrate serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, ensuring that such violations are adequately punished and other steps are taken to end impunity; and to enforce existing legislation or create new legislation to control the import, export, transit, production, management and use of all arms.
The standards outlined in the arms trade treaty should be used when taking decisions on national arms exports, ensuring that human rights, international
344WH
humanitarian law and sustainable development do not suffer as a consequence of commercial pressure. Transparency and oversight should be ensured by the provision of regular and meaningful information to the public about the production, possession and transfer of arms; the reports should be subject to regular review by legislatures and parliaments.
It is therefore of some concern that the Financial Times—a periodical not known for being left-leaning—reported last month, about the measures that we are discussing, that
"the legislation will fail to include regulations permitting law enforcement agencies to prosecute Britons who sell small arms illegally outside the country. The legislation is also expected to omit other regulations, including a register for UK arms dealers and a requirement that all arms contracts include end-user certification, which would allow British authorities to ensure that dual-use technologies had been used for non-military purposes. Similar regulations are in place in several leading arms-exporting countries, including the US."
One of the questions that we need to ask the Government is why we are doing less than the United States in this context? My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) accurately observed that the UK is one of the largest defence equipment exporters in the world. The United States' defence exports outstrip ours by a considerable factor. If the United States can feel confident with that legislation, why cannot the United Kingdom?
That approach contrasts sharply with recent international developments on trafficking and brokering activities, including the EU common position on brokering of June 2003, and the statement of understanding on arms brokerage adopted by the Wassenaar arrangement in December 2002. In response to the Committee's report, the Government stated that they remain
"convinced that the most effective way of preventing the illicit trade in small arms is through multi-lateral action."
However, it is slightly difficult to reconcile that statement with the Government's response to the launch of the "Shattered Lives" report.
Let us further consider the secondary legislation. The Government have rejected calls from the Quadripartite Committee to introduce full extraterritorial controls on arms brokering. In response to the Committee's report, they stated:
"The new controls will criminalise anyone trading, without a licence, in military equipment from the UK or a UK person anywhere trading in 'Restricted Goods' and in arms to embargoed destinations. This latter control should capture many of the circumstances in which arms are transferred to areas of conflict or rogue States."
That statement contrasts considerably with the commitments that the Minister made to me during the passage of the Export Control Bill. In a letter dated 21 February 2002, he said:
"there is no question of the Government going back on its manifesto commitment in this area."
Unfortunately, the Government response to the Quadripartite Committee does not support that claim; rather, it suggests a somewhat stunted ambition on the part of the Government to attempt to control brokering.
It is simply not enough to design legislation to capture, in the words of the Government report, "many of the circumstances". That is a very loose line to take.

345WH
Comprehensive controls are required. The measure will not capture many of the circumstances in which arms are transferred to areas of conflict or rogue states. It will not prevent UK arms brokers overseas from transferring machine guns and helicopters to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, FARC rebels in Colombia or the war-torn Ivory Coast. It will also still be legal for UK dealers to supply surface-to-air missiles to countries whose Governments have been accused of sponsoring terrorism, such as Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Unless the secondary legislation is tightened, the risk will remain that arms brokers will carry out activities overseas to sidestep the legislation.
Similarly, the Government made it clear to the Committee that they believe that the proposed legislation
"would also be likely to lead to conflicts of jurisdiction where other countries take a different view to us on individual cases, and to enforcement difficulties and administrative overload."
That is nonsense. Ministers already propose to exert such controls on the brokering of certain torture equipment and arms to destinations subject to a national embargo, so if they can do that there, why not elsewhere? That raises the question whether the Government believe that it will be easier to obtain a prosecution for corrupt payments to foreign officials made overseas than for the unauthorised trafficking in conventional weapons to a non-embargoed destination. I do not understand the logic in that, so I would welcome clarification from the Minister today.
In evidence to the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to controls where any part of the transaction, including an email, fax or telephone call, takes place in the UK. However, in response to a question about a company being able to enter into a provisional agreement relating to the sale of equipment that it owns in one overseas country to another overseas country before acquiring the licence, the Secretary of State said that a licence would be required only when a commitment was entered into.
On that basis, there is clearly the risk that UK regulations could be avoided by carrying out the marketing and promoting in the UK, while brokering the deal offshore. Such a loophole needs to be closed by the Government, and the most straightforward and effective approach would be to license all arms transfers brokered by UK persons, regardless of their whereabouts. If all transfers are regulated, the control of negotiations becomes redundant.
I alluded to the Minister reaffirming the Government's manifesto commitment on export controls. As the hon. Member for Kingswood, who chairs the Quadripartite Committee, acknowledged, the Labour party's 1997 manifesto contained the commitment to
"strengthen monitoring of the end-use of defence exports to prevent diversion to third countries and to ensure that exported equipment is used only on the conditions under which the export licence has been granted".
The Government have failed to introduce an effective end-use monitoring system. In the past year, several reports have surfaced regarding the diversion of military equipment from third countries into Iraq, and to Jordan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, all
346WH
countries to which the Government authorised weapon sales in 2001, a number of which were suspected of being links in the Iraqi military equipment supply chain.
In February it emerged that UK forces had found UK-made equipment in an Iraqi weapons store outside Basra, and Ministry of Defence sources were reported to have said that the find highlighted the threat from the burgeoning black market arms trade across the middle east.
Obviously, that raises a number of questions, yet the Government declare themselves satisfied that existing pre-licensing checks are sufficient to prevent diversion or unauthorised export, and refuse to institute a system of end-use monitoring. That leads me to the subject of prior parliamentary scrutiny.
The Quadripartite Committee has long called for the introduction of prior parliamentary scrutiny, but Ministers continue to reject it. The Committee's report recommends that the Government come up with proposals for a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications by a Select Committee or Committees of the House. I agree. That same letter of 21 February said that the Government believe that the system of prior parliamentary scrutiny of individual export licence applications cannot be made to work without having a materially adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing process, and risks making Parliament complicit in the eventual licensing decision.
Ministers are clearly seeking to say that there is some sort of constitutional impediment to proper prior scrutiny. I do not think so—there is no constitutional impediment that would prevent Parliament from legislating to give itself a role in scrutinising arms export licences, it is simply that Ministers do not wish to enable Parliament to have a greater say or role in this activity.
The impact of small arms on the lack of development in many parts of the world, especially in several parts of Africa, is self-evident to anyone who reads a newspaper. If we are to have an Export Control Act, it is essential that it is effective, as if it is not, it is not worth having. The International Development Committee will shortly be considering the impact of small arms on migration. I hope that the Quadripartite Committee in its next work will want to consider the calls for the strongest possible United Nations arms trade treaty by 2006.
3.7 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Mailing): Let me say at the outset that although the Government's policy on arms export control still has some material shortcomings, which I will refer to, the present Government since 1997 have made the most enormous strides in achieving a quantum leap in accountability, openness and transparency to the House, and therefore to the wider public, on the issue of arms exports.
Indeed, I do not believe there is any Government, probably in the world, who produce a document that in terms of comprehensiveness and detail is equivalent to the United Kingdom strategic export controls annual report. The Government should be commended for producing such a document, and within the word "Government" I most emphatically include a commendation of the civil servants in the four

347WH
Departments who put in a great deal of effort to provide the House, and therefore the wider public, with the information in the annual report.
I hope that this does not sound self-serving as far as the Quadripartite Committee is concerned, but having been privileged to serve on the Committee since its inception, I believe that the progress that has been made in achieving greater parliamentary accountability and public accountability on arms exports owes quite a bit to the intensive work that the Committee has done in scrutinising the Government's policy and pressing for additional improvements. If it has made a significant contribution, that has been due in no small measure to the excellent chairmanship of Ted Rowlands, the former hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil, in the previous Parliament, and the equally excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) in this Parliament.
Those are the bouquets. I now have one or two brambles. They are significant brambles that were highlighted by the hon. Member for Kingswood and by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I want to make my own comments on the issue of prior parliamentary scrutiny. I was among a small group of members of the Committee in the last Parliament who visited Sweden and the United States, the two countries that for some years have had a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny of their arms exports. Sweden is a fellow EU member country with a not insignificant arms export business, certainly historically, and the United States is far and away the most significant arms exporter in the world. Our inescapable conclusion from those two visits was that it is definitely possible to operate a prior parliamentary scrutiny system without improperly curtailing the freedom of ministerial decision making and without adversely affecting the competitiveness of the arms export business of those two countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but did the report not conclude that the system in operation in Sweden
"could not readily be translated into a UK parliamentary context"?
Did it not also highlight four weaknesses of the American system, without coming up with four solutions?
Sir John Stanley: I certainly acknowledge that every country's parliamentary system and the interface between the Executive and the legislature in each country will be different. If we produced our own system of prior parliamentary scrutiny, we would no doubt make it compatible with the way in which we operate here. That does not detract from my main point, that both those countries, in the context of their parliamentary and congressional systems, have been able to run a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny without the dire impact that the Government have consistently and mistakenly forecast would happen if such a scrutiny system were operated here.
If the Government were prepared to show more flexibility, it would be possible to operate a satisfactory system of prior parliamentary scrutiny here. An
348WH
accommodation could be reached if they were less stony-faced and more willing to accept some give and take and to allow the Quadripartite Committee to proceed on a selective basis. We are looking only at a selective basis in relation to major export contracts and contracts that are particularly sensitive in terms of foreign policy. Once again, I urge the Government to take a fresh look at this, to show more flexibility and to try to work with the Committee to see whether we can reach a middle-ground position that would enable some prior parliamentary scrutiny to take place.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: The right hon. Gentleman and I visited Sweden and the United States. In both cases, the relationship between the legislature and the Executive is different from ours. Our Executive holds powers that are not quite unaccountable but certainly of an inaccessible character in relation to the legislature. It is on that basis that they are not prepared to give anything up—hence the asinine but well-intentioned intervention from the Minister. The Executive and their creatures in Government will not concede one iota on giving the legislature an opportunity to second-guess. That is the fundamental constitutional point with which we, as a group of legislators confronting the Executive, must contend.
Sir John Stanley: I will leave to the hon. Gentleman the choice terminology of criticism that he made of those on his own Front Bench. I endorse the broad thrust of what he said, but I hope that we can achieve some accommodation. In certain areas, the Government have made important progress in prior consultation. They have made important changes in relation to the prior scrutiny of legislation and of major decisions.
On 18 March, the Government gave the British Parliament and the House of Commons the opportunity to be consulted and to vote on the issue of peace and war. They were the first Government to do that, and I commend them for it. If they can do that, surely it is possible to have prior consultation with the Quadripartite Committee on an altogether less massive decision on individual export cases. I urge the Government to consider the subject afresh and show more flexibility than they have hitherto, in the light of the views expressed today.
I will now move on to the Government's policy on trafficking and brokering. When the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry appeared before the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April, I expressed deep scepticism about the adequacy of the Government's policy. Their brokering provisions cover just three areas. The first, which is self-evidently desirable, is brokered sales to destinations under an embargo, and those are rightly included in the parameters of the legislation. Beyond that, only two other areas of military goods and equipment are covered by the legislation. The first area is torture equipment, and I still hold the view that the definition of torture equipment is too limited; the second is missiles, but only those with a range in excess of 300 km.
I had to go to a Clerk to discover the definition of torture equipment employed by the Government for the legislation, and which items of torture equipment fall within the extraterritorial brokering provisions. Other hon. Members may have found it easier, but in case they

349WH
had the same difficulty, and for anyone interested outside, it is necessary to look at the schedule to the Trade in Goods (Control) Order 2003. In paragraph 1, the reader is directed to
"Any good falling within paragraph c. or g. of PL5001 in Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order 2003."
Looking at paragraphs c. and g. of the second statutory instrument, one finally finds a reference to those items of torture equipment that fall within the ambit of this anti-brokering legislation. It is worth reading out those items for the record. They include leg irons, gang chains, electric shock belts, various dimensions of handcuffs, various dimensions and types of shackles, and certain portable devices for the purpose of riot control or self-protection by the administration of an electric shock. The list is limited to those items. Hon. Members may think that it sounds comprehensive, but it does not take much further thought to realise that it excludes a substantial number of items that could be regarded as torture equipment.
I stress to the Minister that the definition is seriously inadequate. It is far too limited. I will repeat the illustration that I gave when the Committee met the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I reminded the Committee that one form of torture used—I fear that it may still be used—in Northern Ireland, by paramilitaries on both sides, is a particularly foul use of the handgun. The handgun is not used in the conventional way, but is placed at the back of the knee, in order to shoot out people's kneecaps. That is torture, by any definition, and is a commonplace form of so-called punishment shooting by paramilitaries. Handguns are wholly excluded from the definition of torture equipment. No doubt there are many other types of military goods and other equipment that could be used to inflict torture on people. The Minister should continue to examine very critically the definition of torture equipment as laid down in the statutory instruments. It is wholly inadequate and should be widened significantly.
The second item concerns missiles. I shall repeat what I said to the Secretary of State when she appeared before the Committee. The policy of including within the legislation only long-range missiles with a range in excess of 300 km seems to me to be unsustainable and, in the present terrorist environment, wholly irresponsible. When I raised that issue with the Secretary of State, I received a disturbing reply. I will quote the exchange that took place between us on 3 April, as reported in paragraph 112.
I asked the Secretary of State:
"How can you defend missiles above 300 k and not shorter?"
The Secretary of State, who was accompanied by her official, Mr. Glyn Williams, replied:
"I wonder whether Mr. Williams would like to comment on that because I am not aware of the detailed thinking on that one."
I found that an extraordinary reply. I commend her for her candour, and in fairness, she went on to give a generalised response to my question. However, I found it extraordinary that, in speaking about such a significant policy decision—to restrict the ambit of this legislation to missiles with a range of 300 km or
350WH
longer—the Secretary of State could say to the Committee that she was not aware of the detailed thinking on that policy issue.
Michael Fabricant: Does that mean that surface-to-air missiles of the type that were used in Mombasa against an Israeli charter aircraft, or that may indeed have been used more recently against aircraft taking off from Heathrow, would not come under the legislation?
Sir John Stanley: My hon. Friend, with his usual acumen, has anticipated a point that I was about to reach.
The Government have got their policy back to front on the brokering of missiles. I do not know whether there is any history of brokering long-range surface-to-surface missiles, but I am certain that the concentration of brokering activity is on short-range missiles, including surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, and even rocket-propelled grenade launchers. That is where brokers are active and where huge amounts of military goods could be available to terrorist groups. I will not advocate the removal of the provisions affecting brokers of longer-range missiles, but the Government must address the question of shorter-range missiles.
I urge the Minister to reflect on known events that have taken place in the past few months. An E1-A1 civil airliner, on take-off from Nairobi airport, was fired at by a terrorist organisation with a surface-to-air missile, which according to reports missed by just a few metres. The infrared locking-on device was apparently programmed for a fast jet take-off aircraft rather than the much slower-moving civil airliner. If the missile had hit, all the passengers and crew would be dead.
We have also seen one or more full-scale security alerts at Heathrow, backed up with full military deployment, because of intelligence about a possible surface-to-air missile attack on civil airliners taking off from Heathrow. As has been widely reported, a British citizen, Mr Hemant Lakhani, was arrested in the United States while he was allegedly trying to sell up to 50 Russian surface-to-air missiles. The intelligence services should be warmly congratulated on the success of that operation, which happily thwarted that attempt. Tragically, there have also been continuing deaths among Coalition forces in Iraq from rocket-propelled grenades, and in the past few days we have seen the worst ever number of casualties as a result of the downing of a Chinook, apparently by a surface-to-air missile.
Every one of those terrorist events or threatened events would have fallen outside the provisions of the current and proposed legislation, and I am in no doubt that the Quadripartite Committee's recommendation on trafficking and brokering, which we agreed unanimously, was right. In paragraph 50 of the report, we said:
"We recommend that the Government should seek to extend extraterritorial control to all trafficking and brokering which, if conducted in the UK, would not be granted a licence."

351WH
I am certain that on this policy issue the Committee has got it right and the Government have got it seriously wrong. I urge them to adopt the Quadripartite Committee's policy as quickly as possible.
Mr. Joe Benton: Before I call the next speaker, I should point out that a number of people still want to speak and that I propose to start the winding-up speeches, subject to any Divisions in the House, at 4.40 pm. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind, so that we can try to allow everyone to speak.
3.29 pm
Sue Doughty: I welcome the first joint report. It sets out clearly some of our problems with the proposed secondary legislation. I recognise—albeit slightly grudgingly—the huge progress that the Government have made with controlling arms exports with increased transparency. I certainly support the words of the Chairman of the Quadripartite Committee and the report: there is a long way to go yet. The report sets out clearly the outstanding issues that need to be addressed. In particular, I share the worries that have been expressed about full extraterritorial controls on arms broking. At a time when there is so much arms proliferation throughout the world—we have heard about the problems of arms and their end use—it seems that we are backing off from putting controls in place.
The Government have said that it would be difficult to prove the part played by United Kingdom nationals and that it would not be worth the effort to try to do so. I do not know whether they think that, if they do not close such a loophole, arms brokers will just stay in the UK and desist from such activities. That is not so. Arms brokers will go overseas, do the deal and return. We are almost encouraging such behaviour.
The Government should require that all arms brokers who hold United Kingdom passports operate under a licence. If not, what else could happen? Worries have already been expressed by the Irish Government about there being nothing to stop arms brokers flying to Ireland to conduct business. At this critical stage, the last thing that the Irish Government want is for brokers to go to Ireland to sell arms. The loophole will provide an unregulated shop window for brokers.
The Government have proposed to keep a close watch on matters and said that, if evidence comes to light, they will act. However, evidence can be hard to obtain. Given that we know such events will happen, we must have the common sense to act now. A broker who sells 3,000 Kalashnikov rifles may be supporting the further provision of weaponry in countries that have already been ruined by internal conflict. The Chair of the International Development Committee referred to the problems in Africa. In a debate that took place the other day, he raised important points, as he did earlier. He asked how there can be peace when there are so many arms and said that we must ensure that expenditure is on development, not warfare.
Even though some of the countries have peace, it is a fragile peace. The last thing that we want is a lot of guns, small arms and larger munitions washing around in such countries. We have asked the Foreign Office to put
352WH
pressure on other Governments, but it is becoming a bit late to do that. How many dead bodies need to be counted before the Government decide that prevention is better than cure? In the case under discussion, there is no cure. It is death and war, or nothing.
The Government said that they could not alone realistically hope to control all exports of military goods arranged and undertaken wholly within other states. We have debated whether it is possible to do so. Finland and Poland have fought extraterritorial control over their respective nationals. Belgium is bringing in a law. Austria, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden all require their residents to apply for licences when brokering arms between third countries. It is essential that we do not wait for a review. We recognise that we have a national responsibility, and we must take that responsibility.
Do the Government believe that the United States and other extraterritorial systems lack credibility? Is that why they will not bring in such proposals? Given that so many other European countries are introducing comprehensive extraterritorial controls on arms brokers, why is the United Kingdom not acting similarly? At present, £1 billion worth of Hawk aircraft are apparently being sold as training planes to India and not for use in combat, yet that is in a territory where, particularly in the mountains of Kashmir, planes need to fly slower, as training craft do. What will happen with those craft? Will they be used in combat? How would we prevent that? Even if they are training craft, do we want to support the training of pilots in a country that is so often in conflict with its neighbours? Should we be easing the path to training for pilots in a country that wants to improve its nuclear capacity? Those exports are worth £1 billion. How many years' support for sustainable development would that money provide?
What is happening with arms exports? The A team go out to sell the goods in India, but those managing the sales are possibly not the A team. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence have talks with their opposite numbers—high-profile talks between high-profile politicians. Export priorities come faster than scrutiny of use. When we consider what those planes will be used for, how difficult will it be to say that we will not grant a licence, given the sales team who went ahead and promoted those sales? There are a lot of questions about that.
We have queries about licensed production facilities. The Government have said that they will seek more information from exporters about the intended use of their exports. Those of us outside—the great British public—might ask whether they should not be asking those questions already. We are moving a long way forward, yet we are building delay into what could be a major improvement in the way in which we license exports. How do we know where those facilities will export to, and what controls will be in place at those facilities?
What happens if there is a regime change in Saudi Arabia? What end-user restrictions might be needed and what production ceiling should be in place? Should we not ask those questions now and make those points a condition of licence, rather than worrying about the matter later? What do we do when it all goes wrong, and

353WH
we find that exporters are producing for export to countries that we would not export directly to? Those are major questions.
Parliament has insufficient information. We are not able to scrutinise arms export licences—that is essential. We have historic problems, such as the dubious al-Yamamah deal between BAE Systems, then British Aerospace, and Saudi Arabia. We are still not getting clear answers to those questions and Parliament needs many such answers.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Lady has made a serious assertion. She said "the dubious" al-Yamamah project. BAE Systems headquarters are in Farnborough, which I represent—it is near her constituency. Many of her constituents will be employed there. Perhaps she can explain what she thinks is dubious about the al-Yamamah programme?
Sue Doughty: I would like to correct my words to "allegedly dubious". They relate to the articles that have appeared in The Guardian. I will not take up the time of the Chamber on that one deal. They are serious allegations, which have not been proved. However, it would be useful to have more information when such allegations are flying about. The deals may or may not be respectable. However, we do not know what is going on, and Parliament does not have access to that information.
A point was made earlier about the international arms trade treaty proposals made by Amnesty International and Oxfam. I welcome the support that hon. Members, particularly the Chairman of the Quadripartite Committee, have given them because we need legally binding international arms controls. We cannot continue seeing British weapons being used by corrupt Governments at the cost of lives, stability and economic stability. We need to monitor that, instead of saying, "Yes, there are all these guns in Iraq and, gosh, isn't it difficult to bring about peace?"
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady said that British Governments—by definition, she means this Government—have exported to corrupt Governments around the world. Will she be more explicit?
Sue Doughty: Yes, I would be delighted to repeat exactly what I said: we are seeing British weapons being used. I did not say that they were exported directly by the British Government. However, it is a fact that British weapons find their way around the world through third-party deals. That is why we have to accept responsibility and ensure stringent controls. We should be placing stronger and more effective controls on brokers in the first place.
It is not too much to expect the Government to take note of the concerns raised, rightly, in the report. I am an opponent of the arms trade, and that is well known, but that does not mean that the Government and our country should not realise that, if we continue to export arms—and many people's livelihoods depend on that—the Government must accept their responsibilities and do much more to control the business.
3.40 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: This is a useful debate. I join the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) in expressing revulsion at the tragic waste of life around the world as a result of the proliferation of small arms in particular.
I was in the House yesterday when Mr. Parry, the father of Tim Parry, launched an appeal for funds and told us about what the Tim Parry Jonathan Ball Trust is trying to do to bring people together. As part of the launch, there was a presentation, during which a film was shown of some of the atrocities that are being committed throughout the world. No one who sees children aged 13 bearing weapons can feel anything other than huge revulsion, and a duty to do something about the issue and to stop such things happening. The hon. Member for Kingswood and I have that opinion in common.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred to the AK45; I think that he meant the AK47, which is, of course, Russian, not British, and which is readily available throughout the world. It is the most easily tradeable kind of weapon. It causes the most damage to people's lives and the greatest injury across the world.
Anyone who has been to Peshawar in Pakistan will know that if they drive out of Peshawar towards the border, they will come to a huge arms market where people make whatever small arms people want. I did not venture into it to find out exactly what went on. Instead—rather more calmly—I made my way up the Khyber pass. People at the market make to order whatever weapons the customer wants in a matter of hours or days. The issue that faces us is how to try to deal with that trade.
I am concerned about the effect that the legislation is having on our defence industry, and I make no bones about that. I represent Aldershot, the home of the British Army, and Farnborough, which is the birthplace of British aviation and the main administrative headquarters of BAE Systems, the fourth largest defence contractor in the world. However, I rise to support BAE Systems not because it is in my constituency but as a matter of principle. It is imperative for the defence of the people of our islands that there is a vibrant defence manufacturing capability in this country. Sadly, in order to defend our country, we cannot rely simply on our home market; we have to engage in defence exports in order to ensure economies of scale, so that we can sustain our industry.
Of course, that of itself would be an insufficient argument but there are further moral justifications for the defence industry, and for supporting and approving of its activities. One of them is that we can defend our friends. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) mentioned Hawk sales to India. It is entirely proper to debate whether it is right for the United Kingdom to sell Hawk aircraft to India. The Hawk aircraft is an advanced jet trainer capable of being adapted for more offensive use. The Hawk 200 was developed by British Aerospace for that purpose, but it has not been so used. It is perfectly legitimate for the United Kingdom to support our friends and allies around the world, and one

355WH
way in which we can do that is to help them to defend themselves. India happens to be a member of the Commonwealth—
Malcolm Bruce: So is Pakistan.
Mr. Howarth: So is Pakistan, which is why it is entirely right that we should have this debate. I have no problem with that. However, the idea that Hawk aircraft are being exported in the absence of any public debate and that Ministers are secretly negotiating deals without telling anyone is wide of the mark.
Sue Doughty: I object to the implication that I suggested that there were secret sales, because I made no such comment.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady came clean towards the end of her comments and said that she was opposed to the arms trade. I am sure that those of her constituents who are employed in that wholly honourable business will take note of that at the next general election.
Sue Doughty: My views on that were known to my electorate at the last election, and they made their decision accordingly.
Mr. Howarth: They will be known even better at the next election, because we shall make sure of that.
It is no good adopting a holier-than-thou attitude. If India did not have access to the Hawk, plenty of similar aircraft are available around the world, and I understand that the Treasury was urging the Ministry of Defence to look at some of the weapons that are available from other parts of the world. I assure the hon. Lady that if we do not export the Hawk to India, plenty of other Governments with similar equipment will be only too keen to take our place, and that they will be a great deal less fussy than even this Government about policing their exports and ensuring that they are used for training purposes rather than adjusted for offensive purposes. She is kidding herself if she thinks that she can stop these exports from the United Kingdom, and the weapons will thereby disappear.
Malcolm Bruce: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying but he is inviting us to go down a dangerous avenue. Is he not implying that it would be foolish of us to try to impose standards that are higher than the lowest in the world, on the ground that we would lose business? If that is what he is saying, this debate is pointless.
Mr. Howarth: No, I am not saying that, but I am issuing a warning: this is an important industry in this country. It employs well over 300,000 honourable people, many of whom are constituents of Members in this Chamber.
Mr. Berry: I am one of the joint authors of the two reports. They recognise the important contribution of the UK defence industry to our economy. I do not think that anyone doubts that.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) may have been leading us down that
356WH
road. I am trying to make the point that it is important to put the matter in context: we are discussing an honourable business that employs many people in this country and contributes to our indigenous ability to defend ourselves.
I agree wholeheartedly with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) on long-range missiles. I will not repeat what he said, save to draw to the attention of the Chamber the concerns expressed by the Defence Manufacturers Association, which questions why the Government have identified the trade in long-range missiles, unmanned air vehicles and their components as "activities of greatest concern". I hope that the Minister will answer my right hon. Friend's points, because it is inexplicable why long-range missiles and unmanned air vehicles should be restricted goods. Unmanned air vehicles will take on an even greater importance in future developments of defence technology. It is important that we do not do anything that will interfere unnecessarily with that business. However, the DMA states that it is
"unaware of any such notorious cases involving LRMs or UAVs or shady gun runners hanging around on street corners in Africa approaching passers by and saying 'Psst… wanna to buy a Tomahawk Cruise Missile?"'
That amply makes the point.
Sir John Stanley: I am wholly in favour of long-range missiles in excess of 300 km continuing to be restricted goods. My point was that I also wish to see short-range missiles included in that category. Is my hon. Friend sure about his reference to pilotless aircraft? The only missiles that are within the ambit of the brokering provisions are those that are capable of a range of 300 km or more, and specially designed components for them. If, like me, he is not sure, perhaps the Minister will clarify the point.
Mr. Howarth: I am afraid that I cannot enlighten my right hon. Friend. It is for the Minister to explain what the Government have in mind. Clearly, there is some opaqueness about this, and it would be helpful if it were clarified.
The industry has had a long-standing concern that the new legislation could impose excessive burdens on it. That applies almost as much today as it ever did. The industry has indicated that the Government have listened to its concerns and have moved towards meeting them. However, we have had a note from the Society of British Aerospace Companies, which represents the aerospace industry. It is concerned about the training implications for its staff. It has been suggested that something like half the staff of BAE Systems—some 25,000 people—will have to be specially trained in how to understand the implications of the legislation. As it is a large company, BAE Systems has a range of training resources at its disposal. The same cannot be said of smaller companies, which are located all over the country: they do not have such resources. I would like the Minister to explain how he proposes to deal with that.
There is also the issue of intangible exports. I understand that the United States of America's regulations mean that when a US business man visits London and opens his laptop computer, he is opening it

357WH
in a discrete part of the United States, which has moved temporarily to London. However, when a British business man goes to New York or Washington and does the same with his laptop, which contains, of course, all the information about the technology or the deal that he is working on, he is opening it in the United States, and therefore he has exported the knowledge to that country. Those are difficult areas. I should like the Minister to explain how he proposes to deal with what could turn out to be an absolute nightmare, in terms of the conduct of business.
My final concern is a parochial one, about the Farnborough air show in my constituency. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members have visited the show—or, if they have not, that they will accept an invitation to come to next July's show—because it is one of the greatest air shows in the world. However, it is not just an air show: it is also a trade fair. It has won its place in the world by virtue of the fact that we welcome people from all over the globe, and give other manufacturing nations equal access to the world's markets. That does not happen in quite the same way in Paris, which will surprise some right hon. and hon. Members. American manufacturers, in particular, like coming to the UK because they get a fair crack of the whip.
I understand that some progress is being made on the Farnborough air show, but it has been pointed out that the essence of the business that is conducted there—meeting people, negotiating and signing deals—could be put in jeopardy by the new legislation. In 2000, deals worth about $54 million were signed at the air show. That is a huge sum. Much of that business had, of course, been negotiated in advance, but it was signed at the Farnborough air show. I do not want anything to imperil the air show, and nor do the many UK companies for which it is the major shop window.
I hope that the Minister recognises that the global air show circuit is becoming more competitive, and that Paris is not the only competitor—Dubai, Singapore and other places are also important. The SBAC fears that the new legislation could still create a disincentive to sign major contracts in the UK, and lessen the commercial attractiveness of Farnborough as a global business event, so I hope that the Minister will reassure me on that point.
3.56 pm
Paul Farrelly: Thank you for allowing me to say a few words, Mr. Benton. I shall make some brief remarks about the Committee's recommendations on extraterritorial controls on arms trafficking and brokering, with particular reference to an international arms dealer based in the UK. I raised my concerns about that dealer with my hon. Friend the Minister during the passage of the Export Control Act 2002. I apologise to him for not giving notice beforehand, but I originally planned to have another meeting, which was subsequently cancelled.
Since I was elected two years ago, I have repeatedly raised the issue of military supplies and arms being supplied to Zimbabwe, both for internal repression and to support its military adventures in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I have highlighted the activities of one John Arnold Bredenkamp, who holds a dual Zimbabwean-Dutch passport but is resident in the
358WH
UK—indeed, he has residence rights here. He is certainly not small fry, but is one of the Mugabe regime's biggest arms suppliers, from small-calibre weapons right up to—it is reliably understood—MiG Hind attack helicopters from parts of the former Soviet Union. Cleverly, Mr. Bredenkamp supplies those arms via Zimbabwe-incorporated companies, so they are not directly exported from the UK, but his business empire is firmly based in this country—in Berkshire—and he well known in military and intelligence circles.
When the Export Control Act 2002 was passing through the House, my colleagues and I were naturally concerned to establish whether its provisions and sanctions would catch the activities of those such as Mr. Bredenkamp. The Minister who is to wind up today's debate assured me that they would, saying:
"My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) referred to some specific examples, but as he knows, I cannot comment on individual cases. However, he raised an important point of principle on which I think the House will want to have the Government's views on record. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Bill will give us the power to control UK citizens and anyone operating in the UK, which I think was the point that he was making. He was concerned about someone who was not a UK citizen who was a trafficker and broker in arms to arms-embargoed destinations such as Zimbabwe. Such people will be caught. That is important."—[Official Report, 8 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 416.]
At a distance, those so inclined might want to quibble about semantics, especially about the meaning of the word "caught". As my question and the debate thereafter show, however, there can be no doubt about the meaning of the assurance that the Bill would catch people such as those I described. I do not want to embarrass my hon. Friend the Minister—the legislation and its implementation are complicated, and I am certain that his assurance was given in good faith—but I have to tell him that his assurance was incorrect because, under the legislation, people like Mr. Bredenkamp will continue to operate with impunity from a UK base. It is simply wrong that people like him can cleverly organise their affairs to outwit legislation and to make a mockery of arms control legislation.
Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend is simply wrong.
Paul Farrelly: I repeat that I am certain that the assurance was given in good faith, but the record is in Hansard for everyone to see.
Nigel Griffiths: I am not correcting the Hansard reference, but my hon. Friend's mistaken interpretation of the current and future state of the legislation.
Paul Farrelly: For the first time in my two years in the House, I am grateful to be told that I am mistaken. I look forward to my hon. Friend's concluding remarks. Given hon. Members' contributions today, however, it is fair to say that the question still stands: when will something be done about merchants of death such as Mr. Bredenkamp who are operating from the UK? When I have asked that question outside the context of the Act, the answer has generally been, "Bring us the evidence and we will have a look." That brings me to another aspect of the effectiveness of our arms control regime.

359WH
Mr. Bredenkamp is well known. He is one of the UK's richest people—one only has to look at The Sunday Times guide to the rich every year—and he has a long track record of arms dealing. He helped Ian Smith's Rhodesia bust international sanctions, and supplied weapons, including anti-personnel mines, to Iraq during its bloody war against Iran, which were eventually used against British troops in the 1990 Gulf war. [Interruption.] My apologies. I have now switched off my wife.
Cleverly, in pursuit of profits, Mr. Bredenkamp has long since turned his allegiance to Robert Mugabe. He was named in a recent United Nations panel report as one of those who are supposed to have profiteered from the tragic war in the DRC by looting the country of its precious minerals, which is the price for his arms supply to Zimbabwe. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) may be interested to know that he has also been a BAE Systems agent in Zimbabwe. Given the position of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary on the Mugabe regime, I am sure that he will be as concerned as I am if BAE Systems is exporting spares to Zimbabwe for use in Hawk jets, which are being used to prosecute the war in the DRC. I mention this history because any arms control regime needs to be proactive, not just reactive, if it is to deal with merchants of death.
Given that my hon. Friend the Minister corrected me, will he state the Government's position on UK-based individuals who are trafficking arms abroad by whatever mechanisms? Will he also agree to calls made by hon. Members here today and by the Quadripartite Committee for the scope of the Act and its implementation to be extended to cover such individuals?
Mr. Berry: I understand that it is correct to say that section 4 of the Export Control Act 2002 gives the Government the power to exercise full extraterritoriality, but that under secondary legislation, it specifically will not cover trafficking and brokering unless part of that transaction takes place in the UK. Is that my hon. Friend's understanding? That may help to clarify the Minister's response later.
Paul Farrelly: The problem is indeed the scope of the secondary legislation to give effect to the Bill.
4.4 pm
Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.
4.28 pm
On resuming—
Paul Farrelly: I was just saying how important it is for any arms control regime to be seen to be proactive and not merely reactive. I do not want the Chamber to misunderstand my comments today. I welcome the Act and congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the effort that he has put into a complicated piece of legislation, the implementation of which is also complicated. However, confusion and misapprehension
360WH
remain as to how easy it may be for clever and resourceful individuals and businesses—such as those involved in the arms business—to evade the provisions, particularly by relocating offshore.
I hope that I am simply confused and wrong. In view of the Minister's comments, I would be grateful if he wrote to me to clarify the position of individuals such as Mr. Bredenkamp, who have UK residence rights but who organise their affairs so that no transaction takes place in the UK. Will they fall under the new legislation, which is to be enacted on 1 May? If not, as part of a learning process, will the Government consider extending the legislation?
4.29 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I had not thought that I would do so, because I spoke in the debate on 27 March, in which I covered some of the principal subjects according to my lights. Hon. Members know my views, but I wish to add a few points, as events have moved on slightly since then.
I will not talk about prior parliamentary scrutiny, as it has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley) and others. As he knows, we are not unanimous on that. I do not wholly endorse the use of prior parliamentary scrutiny as a mechanism to scrutinise the export control system. However, if we are not to have formal prior parliamentary scrutiny, it is important that at every point at which something might be construed as changing policy in the export control system, it should be disclosed to Parliament and the Committee in a form that enables the Committee to seek to influence and scrutinise that policy before it is put into practice. It is not wholly the case that that happens now. Policy has seemed to develop, particularly in relation to incorporation. That was discovered during our inquiries, rather than its being disclosed to us as an explicit intention of the Government.
That leads me on to the subject of incorporation, which I touched on in March. The Government have responded to us on that subject, among others, but I am not entirely happy with where we have gone since March. The Government interpreted my concerns as though our argument about incorporated equipment was simply that the Government were abandoning the consolidated criteria in favour of some other set of criteria. That is not really my argument. I am sure that the Government continue to look at applications against the consolidated criteria, but they then go one step beyond that and add particular considerations of incorporation that could conflict with the consolidated criteria. In their response to our recommendation 30 in the annual report, the Government stated that
"it is likely that if the UK is the only source for certain goods, or if the UK-origin goods are being supplied as part of a long-standing supply programme that the implications of refusing licences on the UK's defence relations with the incorporating country are likely to be greater. This will be taken into account in reaching any decision."
As far as I am aware, that is expressly beyond the consolidated criteria. We do not say that if there is a long-standing supply contract and if circumstances change, export licences will none the less be granted in recognition of that fact. We do not say that if the UK is

361WH
the only source of particular licensable goods, they should be licensed because of the impact that not doing so would have on someone else's defence industry. We are lucky that the consolidated criteria do not operate in that way. We want to know whether equipment that is relatively immaterial to the final product is more likely to be licensed.
The Government are not answering that question. If it is immaterial, it may not make too much difference. but if the items are integral to the defence equipment and the UK is the only source or origin, the question whether it is licensed becomes very relevant. It is instrumental to the further point of whether the export controls of the country to which goods are sent—America is the obvious case in point—are not only robust in themselves, as the American ones no doubt are, but aligned with those of the UK. In one relevant instance they are not. After May, the waiver regime with respect to the Americans, and collaboration with them, may make some difference to us.
On the matter of small arms and light weapons, and the question of extraterritoriality, I am somewhat heartened by the Government's response to the first joint report, and particularly our recommendation 7. The Government have rightly set out how they have pursued international consensus on the trade in small arms and light weapons, and I think that the range of that response reinforces the Committee's argument that, in so far as we should extend the scope of our extraterritorial jurisdiction, small arms and light weapons meet the Government's broad criteria.
There is an international consensus, which seems sufficiently well established to be the basis of the UK's activity in the international arena. It should not necessarily require us to go to the point of turning every potential destination into an embargoed destination to achieve enforcement. As the Government said, the approach is about international consensus, and that was the basis on which we discussed the matter in March; there is an international consensus on small arms, and if it is not enforceable in every state of the world, it is substantially enforceable in line with a set of international agreements. It would certainly encourage other countries to subscribe to those agreements if we were to extend our extraterritorial jurisdiction to show, in this very particular respect, the UK Government's intentions.
I want to mention the timing of what is happening. As I understand matters, we should have seen the orders by now, and I confess that I have not. I do not think that the orders have been laid, although the Minister may tell us otherwise. We were told in the Government's response that they would be laid by the end of October. The Minister is not interrupting me, so I assume that that has not happened.
I think that the Government's response stated that the user guidance was going to be made available at the same time as the orders and that the final regulatory impact assessment would also be available then. I think that the latter item is available to the industry. If we are moving towards a commencement date in May 2004 and the orders are now late I should like to be sure that we know the precise timetable.
Much hangs on what is being done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, there is a substantial training and implementation task
362WH
for the industry. Training sometimes seems to be a discretionary activity, but in the present context it is not. It would be rash to allow—and I do not think that any responsible employer would allow—someone to be engaged in the relevant kind of activity without the appropriate training, because of the penalties that might ensue if they behaved contrary to the regulations. If 50 per cent. of the staff of BAE Systems were thus affected, the training requirement would be enormous. That would be very testing if it had to be achieved in six months.
All that work must be done by the industry alongside its continuing tasks. Of course, one of the questions that we considered during our inquiry was the extent of the additional burden. The industry tells us that the regulatory impact assessment cites the latest figure of a 22 per cent. increase in the number of applications that are required. That is something like six times more than the number of additional licences originally anticipated in the first regulatory impact assessment. When we return to the question of minimising burdens on business, the Minister must address those points.
In particular, will the Minister consider what we have not seen from the review of the licensing system, which is the point about compensating reductions in burdens in the licensing system in the range of existing applications, to be achieved through the use of more open licensing and so on? Will he also consider continuing to speed up the system? Ensuring the certainty of the timing of licence applications will mean that, even if the burdens of bureaucracy still exist, those in the industry can be reasonably confident of an early response, which will give them some commercial benefit.
The situation has moved on since March, and I wanted to put those points on the record, not least because many believe that the Minister can give us some information on them.
Mr. Joe Benton: As hon. Members will recall, to facilitate the attendance of the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) at a Committee, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) curtailed his speech. With the leave of the Chamber, I call him again.
4.41 pm
Mr. Berry: Thank you, Mr. Benton. With your permission, I have two points to make to complete my speech, and I will make them as quickly as possible.
I commented almost exclusively on trafficking and brokering because they are an important part of the debate about how the Government use the Export Control Act 2002, which gives the Government powers further to control the arms trade. On the Committee's behalf, the Clerk of the Quadripartite Committee wrote to the Foreign Office on 12 September to raise the case of Hemant Lakhani, the British citizen about whom hon. Members may have read in the press. He was arrested in the USA and accused of attempting to sell shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles to supposed terrorists.
It is my understanding, and that of our Clerk, that the Government's proposals would not make it an offence for a British citizen to sell or arrange for the sale of such missiles from outside the UK. Such missiles would be covered if their range were 300 km or more. Therefore, if someone is trying to broker arms sales to terrorists, as

363WH
long as any missiles on the shopping list do not have a range of 300 km or more and the sale takes place outside the UK, they will not be controlled by proposals under the Export Control Act.
We asked the Foreign Office to clarify why the Government's proposals do not regulate extraterritorial trade in equipment that would be of such obvious interest to terrorist groups. We have not yet received a reply, which is not a criticism. However, if the Government are not proposing to take control over the activities overseas of British citizens who are brokering the sale of missiles to terrorists, I would not want to be a Minister if, heaven forbid, a terrorist group used a missile that had been brokered by a British citizen. I mentioned terrorism at the beginning because one reason to be ever more vigilant about controlling the international arms trade is the threat and reality of terrorism. I would appreciate my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on that. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how seriously all Committee members, including the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) who raised it earlier, feel about it.
My other point relates to end use. The Government try to control arms exports from the UK by not granting licences for exports that they believe are going to the wrong places and by granting licences for legitimate arms exports. From time to time, the Government attach specific conditions to the use of equipment that they allow for export: for example, in 2000 they sought and received assurances from Israel that United Kingdom military equipment purchased by Israel would not be used in the occupied territories. It turned out that our attaché observed equipment such as Centurion tanks being used in the occupied territories. The Government were clear that the Israeli Government were in breach of the assurances that they had given to the United Kingdom and decided that they would no longer take Israeli assurances into account when deciding whether to allow exports. However, I no longer know what that means. We export a fair amount of military equipment to Israel. Do the Government have assurances that henceforth all exports will not be used in the occupied territories? Do they believe that they can accept those assurances?
Richard Burden: My hon. Friend will know that the issue has caused great worry. Does he share my concern about an article that appeared in The Guardian yesterday? Perhaps the Minister can comment on it. The newspaper claimed:
"Exports approved by the government this year cover categories including leg-irons, electric shock belts and chemical and biological agents such as tear gas. They also include categories covering mortars, rocket launchers, anti-tank weapons, military explosives, and infrared and radar sensors."
The report focuses on exports from this country to Israel that seem to breach absolutely all our guidelines.
Mr. Berry: I share my hon. Friend's concern. I confess that I am great reader of The Guardian. Although it occasionally contains inaccurate information, hon. Members will know that that is true of all sections of the media. Sometimes, those in the media get things right;
364WH
other times, they get it wrong. More importantly, I hope that the Minister can arrange for those of us who have an interest in the issue, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and me, to receive a written response to the series of allegations outlined in The Guardian. I will understand if the Minister is unable to response to such matters today, because he has so much to cover in the winding-up speech. If the allegations were true, that would be of enormous concern.
In reference to the use of British-supplied Hawk aircraft and Scorpion personnel carriers in Aceh in Indonesia, I was advised that the UK Government had received assurances that military equipment in Indonesia would not be used against civilians who were exercising their human rights and that that meant specifically that the equipment could not be used to harass the citizens of Aceh. After that, I had the pleasure of appearing on the "Today" programme—I have now alienated more than half the Chamber by referring to The Guardian and the "Today" programme in the same speech. When I recounted what I understood to be the Government's policy, I was astonished when a spokesperson for the Indonesian Government said, "Well, we bought these planes and I do not know what on earth people thought we were going to use them for if we weren't going to fly them around and enforce our policy."
What information do the Government have about the Indonesian authority's use of British-built military equipment in operations in Aceh this year? Was the equipment used in a way that breached the Indonesian Government's assurances not to use such equipment offensively or in violation of human rights? What representations have the Government made to the Indonesian authorities about the way in which they have used British-built military equipment in Aceh? Do the Government believe that the assurances have—or may have been—breached? Have they taken any action against Indonesia or in relation to existing export licence applications that may be pending?
In conclusion, there are general issues about the assurances that our Government rightly seek from those who purchase weapons from the UK, and about the assurances that are given. I am not clear about a couple of points. What do the Government believe would be the appropriate action for them to take if an end user did not abide by assurances it had given? If you have received an assurance, but it becomes clear that the end user has broken that assurance, what can you do? Do you stop exporting and review all existing arms licences? What do you do? I am using "you", Mr. Benton, in the "what does one do?" sense. What particularly interests me is whether, when end user assurances are requested and obtained, the Government set out to the end user what the consequences of breaching those assurances might be and, if so, how they do it.
Those questions require detailed answers. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Minister, he has been asked thousands of questions this afternoon. I hope that all of them will be answered, but if he cannot answer them in his winding-up speech, please will he do so in writing as soon as is convenient? I am grateful for having been allowed to speak again.
4.50 pm
Malcolm Bruce: This has been a useful, interesting and informative debate. I congratulate the Quadripartite Committee, although I wish we could find a friendlier term for four Committees coming together in one body to do work that has, both in the reports before us and over the years, been so productive.
Let us recognise that we started from a point at which there was considerable embarrassment about the lack of a control system, and we had an incoming Government who had a clear political obligation to put in place a regime that was considerably better than the one that had been exposed. We have the Committee to thank for identifying the considerable progress that has been made: there is much greater transparency and consequently we can justifiably claim to have one of the best and most transparent systems in the world. We should acknowledge that and I do so unreservedly.
Having said that, it seems that there are some underlying problems. Let us start with public opinion. Many people are uncomfortable about all aspects of the arms trade—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) says simply that she is against the arms trade. She is not alone; many say that we should not trade arms at all. In return, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) points out perfectly reasonably that the nature of the defence industry is such that one cannot sustain one's capabilities purely within the domestic market and that it is therefore necessary to internationalise it. However, it is important to set out clear criteria for what we are trying to achieve. The argument that if we do not sell somebody weapons, somebody else will, is about the weakest that I can think of for not imposing controls and standards.
We have to acknowledge two fundamental facts. One is that the purchasing power of the United States in defence systems is 50 per cent. greater than that of the rest of the world combined. The US can afford to waste a great deal on its contracts and it throws a lot of money away; however, it ends up with much more powerful equipment and more of it, and the capacity to undercut and compete with everybody else in the world. Secondly, the only counterbalance to that in the European context is both to co-operate where we can with the United States, and to develop some Europe-wide capacities. I remind the hon. Member for Aldershot that that issue has at times rent his party asunder, leading on one occasion to the spectacular resignation of Michael Heseltine.
Having put that into context, we should identify the countries with which we have a natural defence association and with which we wish to trade, co-operate and share technology—as well as compete in business. Clearly, the United States, our main NATO ally, is at the core of that. What can become a problem are cases in which competition and co-operation cut across each other—that has been alluded to. In addition, competition in third markets can become a significant economic raison d'être for some defence contractors. We need two things: first, a clear policy on who we will and will not sell to, and what we will and will not sell; and, secondly, a transparent mechanism for delivering that. When making decisions, we have to accept that there may be some economic disadvantage attached to
366WH
certain decisions, but that we may have to balance the issues and conclude that what might be called the higher aspirations of public policy should take precedence.
Reading the report, particularly the country-by-country report, it is satisfying to note that many countries that I think should not be in the list are not, and that, in the case of some of the countries over which there are question marks, there appear to be answers. Take Uzbekistan, for example, to which my immediate reaction is: "Are we sure we should be doing business with that country?" The reassurance given is that we are not; I hope that that is true. The United States and we are operating out of Uzbekistan. Given the travails of our ambassador there, we have to be assured that what goes on in Uzbekistan is entirely under our control and that of our allies, and that it is not in the hands of a Government whose human rights record is severely questioned.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). There is something slightly perverse about selling weapons to people and then complaining when they use them, or about what they use them for. Clearly, one expects the country to use the weapons, or at least have them in provision, for the purpose for which they were intended. That brings me to a particular point of debate: the supply of weapons, in particular Hawks, to India. That is a matter of debate and I do not have a definitive view about it, but it must be acknowledged that there is genuine public concern, given the potential escalation to the point of nuclear trigger of the situation between India and Pakistan. Many people think that we should not be arming either side, or adding any kind of fuel, and there are much more complicated arguments that people can put into play. Although I regard myself as a friend of India, I have great concerns about the imbalance between India and Pakistan. India has a substantial conventional superiority, and it worries me to add to that because to do so lowers the nuclear threshold.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The point is that the issue is in the public domain and is being discussed. It is not as though the Hawks will be marketed by nefarious characters operating from Berkshire, Zimbabwe, or anywhere else.
Malcolm Bruce: I accept that, but there is legitimate concern. The prime purpose of the aeroplanes being sold is to serve as training aircraft. The question is: who is the country training? It is training pilots to fight in combat. It is a little naive to suggest that by selling only trainers, one is not adding to defensive or offensive capabilities. The basic point of concern—the imbalance—still applies, although I completely take the hon. Gentleman's point.
A subject that has not been touched on but is worth mentioning is the role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in guaranteeing exports in some cases. It has been identified that it is quite difficult to get detailed information out of the ECGD on how much of its total guarantee budget is for defence and non-defence projects. However, it appears that £3.1 billion is spent on underwriting defence contracts. Some of that will go to countries with a bad record on payment. I ask the House to consider the following: if a contract with a Government for military equipment is in some way in

367WH
default, or if payments are not being made on time, how can one be sure that a Government who cannot fulfil their financial obligations will fulfil their contractual obligations regarding what they do with the equipment that has been supplied? Any Government who have been given guarantees for defence contracts that they have not honoured should, de facto, fall off the list as a matter of principle. I should be interested to see whether the Minister thinks that that such a view is in process or should be.
The role of Ministers in promoting contracts has been mentioned. No one suggests that they should not be doing so or that it is wrong of them to do so, although some people do not like them doing it and would prefer them to promote other things. However, it is a problem if Ministers promote something in a questionable area where a licence is a debatable issue. If high-profile Ministers have made anything that looks like a commitment, it clearly prejudices the licensing process thereafter.
One matter to which the report alludes—I am surprised it has not been given more attention—is the trade between ourselves and the United States and third parties, the most obvious example being Israel. I happen to be a member of the Technological and Aerospace Committee of the Western European Union. I do not regard myself as an expert, but serving on the Committee gives me an opportunity to engage in discussions about the exchange of technology, trade and joint ventures. Having visited defence interests in the United States, I am aware of some of the obvious issues.
A "Buy America" Act is proposed. It is clear that it is part of a populist campaign. It is superficially attractive to be able to say on US doorsteps, "If we are spending all this money on defence, we should make sure that every cent goes to American contractors. We should only buy American, and we can do it. We spend two thirds of the world's defence budget." Defence experts, however, say that America must get some things from other sources either because they are better or because they are subject to patents and therefore unobtainable from domestic sources. A component may be very small, but if the Americans were prevented from buying it, in extreme cases, their planes would not be able to fly. Defence contractors never want to be constrained in their ability to buy the best, whatever it costs and wherever it comes from. That is the natural instinct of every defence procurement person I have ever met. That is one of the reasons why that piece of legislation will not come into play, but the sentiment behind it will not be lost.
The head-up display units that we traditionally supply through established contracts in the United States to be fitted in aircraft that are subsequently sold to Israel would, if they were supplied direct to Israel, fall completely under our own ban. In other words, we would supply neither the planes nor the equipment to be installed in such planes in a direct contractual arrangement with Israel. The Government argue that they have a long and established contractual arrangement with American defence sources and if, having bought the units from us, the Americans choose to fit them in aircraft and send them to Israel we should not interfere. As I understand it, the Government are
368WH
worried about the implications for defence contract relations between the US and Britain, which I understand are large, and feel that they just have to accept that.
The Committee makes it clear, and I entirely endorse its recommendation, that as the United States has no compunction in attaching conditions to its armament exports to any third party, including this country, it is not unreasonable of us to say that we will not sell certain things to the Israelis and the condition of our selling them to the US is that it will not use them in that context either.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: It should be put on the record that a head-up display has no offensive capability whatsoever. It simply enables the pilot to see out of the cockpit without having the instruments reflected on the glass. It adds nothing to the offensive capability of the aircraft.
Malcolm Bruce: I am not sure that I am grateful for that intervention. Certainly the report suggests that it is an aid that is relevant. Before the Chairman of the Committee intervenes, I should point out that the fact remains that we have decided that the units are not something that we would sell to the Israelis. My argument is not altered by that intervention.
Mr. Berry: Is it not the case that the Government's export control criteria apply not only to finished products, but to components? The fact that one cannot commit an offensive act with a head-up display on its own—although one could probably hit someone with it—is neither here nor there. It is a component in a piece of hardware that can be used offensively and therefore is subject to controls.
Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The report makes that point clear, which is why I picked up on it. I repeat: we have identified the items as a product that we would not sell direct to Israel.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) put his finger on a point that needs to be clarified. I do not wish to be churlish, and I hope that now or in future we will have put our finger on something that becomes positive rather than negative. There is a danger that we pass primary legislation which sets out clear, fine criteria about ideals that we wish to set as our standards, but in the detailed administration, either there are exemptions or we do not take up the powers that people thought were important. In a sense, we create primary legislation that sets out the ideals, and secondary legislation that overtly creates loopholes in order to undermine the spirit, and to some extent the letter, of the primary legislation.
That is putting it starkly, and it is up to the Committee to get their hands on it and decide whether it is a genuine point of criticism. We are in part talking about ethics, not just about the defence industry. We all acknowledge that the defence industry is important, but we are trying to set ethical standards and limit the misuse of defence equipment. Small arms are perhaps the biggest problem, but as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) said, none of us would regard

369WH
missiles with a capacity of 300 km as small arms. The Chairman of the Committee made it clear that equipment that terrorists are actively seeking and trying to use—indeed, some have used it—is the subject of real, legitimate and active concern
I listened with considerable interest to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, who is familiar with the subject and has been through the hearings and reports. I am astonished by the situation as he described it. It flies in the face of our practice and policy and makes absolutely no sense—indeed, it makes nonsense of the objective of preventing the misuse of weapons. I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Kingswood said, and I advise the Minister responding to the debate to communicate the message to his colleagues very powerfully. If any such terrorist activity happened here and it became apparent that a British citizen had been instrumental in the weapon's procurement, I think that not one Minister, but the whole Government, would have to resign, so serious would the matter be. We have identified that there is a problem and it seems absolutely clear that the loophole should the closed as quickly as possible. I am genuinely grateful to the Committee for drawing that to our attention, because it is an issue that Ministers cannot walk away from.
We have had a good debate. The Quadripartite Committee is serving an extremely useful purpose. I acknowledge that the dialogue is producing a genuine improvement in our transparency and our principles, but—to put my finger on the nub of the problem—there is still a conflict of interests involving British defence contracts and capabilities, important though they are. Ensuring that our exports are not misused is not only an ideal but a principle that we wish to establish. We need to check our experts, to follow them through and, on occasion, to do random tests on what is being done with our export commodities in third-party markets, so we can be sure that they are not being misused.
I commend the report's recommendations to the Minister, who should respond positively to this debate and recognise that there is some additional action that the Government need to take if people are to be reassured that both principles and protection are at the heart of the Government's objectives.
5.8 pm
Michael Fabricant: As the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said, this has been an important, interesting and unusually surprising debate, because a number of issues have been raised that were not necessarily covered by the two reports, yet are vital to the interests of the United Kingdom and its citizens. I will return to that shortly.
The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) in his usual admirable style, which we all expect from him. He presented a private Member's Bill on disability in 1992–93, which he also did very well. He talked in this debate about the progress in recent years. Opposition Members accept and welcome the very good progress that has been made.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there is considerable interest in the issue outside Parliament. I for one will receive a petition on it in the close of Lichfield cathedral on Saturday from Andrew Jacobs, representing Amnesty International. The issue interests
370WH
not only pressure groups such as Amnesty International and Oxfam but other organisations and individuals, because the trade in arms is an emotive issue. It is also important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, it involves jobs, and even the defence of the realm.
The hon. Member for Kingswood said that we have the toughest regime in Europe, in which we can take pride, but that does not mean that we can be complacent. Knowing the Minister, I suspect that "complacency" is not a word in his lexicon. Nevertheless, we have seen that there is a huge lacuna in respect of brokering and factoring, to which I shall come shortly.
The hon. Member for Kingswood spoke about gun crime. That is interesting because gun crime is increasing in this country, partly as a result of weapons—small arms—being imported from eastern Europe. When those countries join the European Union—I welcome their entry—we must ensure that rules are in place to impede any illegal arms transfer between countries in the EU.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) apologised and explained why, as Chairman of the International Development Committee, he could not stay for the whole debate. He made the interesting point that, on the whole, it is the poorest developing countries that spend most on arms. I was tempted to ask him about the causality of that. Does the purchase and consumption of arms make those countries poor, or do they feel that they need to buy arms to protect themselves because they are poor? That is an interesting question, but I suspect that it is not for debate today.
My hon. Friend talked about the brokerage of torture equipment and the controls on that, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir John Stanley). My right hon. Friend made the interesting point that Sweden and the United States offer prior parliamentary scrutiny of export sales, and called for a similar legislative procedure here. I do not think for one moment that he would expect every export licence to be discussed here first, but I suspect that he was saying that Parliament should have the prerogative to look at any export licence before it is issued. That would have advantages and disadvantages. One disadvantage might be that it could slow the provision of an export licence, but my right hon. Friend addressed that when he asked why, if that were the case, the system worked in Sweden and the United States.
The Minister said, rather robustly, that he thought that the system did not work in the United States and that it did not work well in Sweden. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, referred to the Minister's comments as "asinine".
One of the most interesting and relevant points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing concerned trafficking and brokering, which were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Gordon. The definition of torture equipment seems far too limited. I accept that it is difficult to define these things in Acts of Parliament or secondary legislation, but I would welcome the Minister's comments on whether there is some way of drafting statutory instruments more tightly, so that torture equipment is defined more closely. It would be dreadful if there were a loophole.

371WH
On the subject of loopholes, surely the biggest is the brokerage of missiles. I was shocked, and people listening to this debate will be shocked, to know that missiles with a range of less than 300 km do not come within the ambit of trafficking and brokering as defined in the Export Control Act. Again, I remind colleagues of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. At a time when we are at war with agents of terror and know that they have used ground-to-air missiles in Kenya, are using them in Iraq and could use them on us here—there was a scare only a few months ago—it is quite extraordinary that ground-to-air missiles are exempt. I, for one, want a commitment from the Minister that that loophole will be closed. It must be closed and it is in our national interest that it be closed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot is always a doughty defender of the defence industry, and rightly so. He said that there is always a balance between ensuring that we try to protect the interests of those who suffer from terrorists or belligerent nations, and recognising that many people in the United Kingdom are legitimately employed in the defence industry. That is a difficult balance. Slow and cumbersome regimes will do nothing for the defence of the realm, or the employment of the tens of thousands of people who are gainfully and legitimately employed directly in the defence industry in the UK. Some have argued that several hundreds of thousands of people are indirectly employed in the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly)—I am allowed to call him my hon. Friend because he is a fellow Staffordshire Member and we rightly co-operate closely on a number of issues, as does the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), who is the Government Whip in this debate—raised an extraordinary case. I will not repeat the Dutch—I believe he is Dutch—gentleman's name. However, it seems that he is able to operate legitimately—although there may be some doubt about that, according to the Minister—in the UK in the sale of arms overseas to Zimbabwe and from there to other countries. I must repeat the stricture raised by the hon. Member for Gordon: the Minister will bear a huge burden of responsibility if a single British citizen or a single person on UK soil is injured due to those lacunae in the law. Directly or indirectly, he will be responsible and we need some clear answers at the end of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) always speaks informatively and raised a number of issues. I shall not cover them all but he referred to a growing and helpful international consensus on the control of small arms and light weapons. We sometimes forget when discussing ground-to-air missiles, grenade launchers and fighter and trainer aircraft that small arms and light weapons often cause much damage. I remind the Chamber that the Lord's Resistance Army, which operates in Sudan and Uganda, has abducted more than 10,000 children in the past few years. That is appalling. Many other people have been murdered and maimed not just by the LRA but by other terrorist groups, not with heavy weapons but with light arms and small weapons. Those issues need to be dealt with.
372WH
The Conservatives welcome the findings of the Quadripartite Committee's report on Government proposals for secondary legislation. The report correctly highlighted the extreme sensitivity in the industry about the Government's original consultation document.
There is no question but that the issue of licensing proposals is one of pivotal importance for British industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot pointed out. The Quadripartite Committee received protestations about the Government proposals from such established trade bodies as the Defence Manufacturers Export Licensing Group, representative of exporters in the Defence Manufacturers Association, which said that it had "grave concerns" about such proposals, and that they "could be disastrous" when they are implemented. In that situation, it is vital that the proposals are laid bare and undergo thorough scrutiny. This debate is a part of that.
The primary issue of importance for the industry was the lack of clarity in what the proposals mean for business. The DMELG said that the proposals are
"phrased far too vaguely and loosely…relying on a pragmatic and common sense approach by Government".
Will the Government have that pragmatic and commonsense approach? The Quadripartite Committee stated:
"Industry and the public rely on a pragmatic and commonsense approach by Government in many areas of life. We fail to see why such an approach should be undesirable here".
We can all agree with that.
The proposed new trade controls are at the centre of the industry's concerns about the lack of clarity in the new regulations. The Government have estimated that annual individual trade licence applications will number between 100 and 250. The DMELG believes that those hypothetical figures are a gross underestimate of the number of licences that will be required by both UK industry and overseas business visitors to the UK. The system has to work.
For example, a coincidence took place a couple of days ago. I received an e-mail from a Mr. Anderson, the managing director of a firm in Burntwood, in my constituency, called Eco-Tec. He wanted to know whether equipment that the company was selling to China needed an export licence. On 5 September, the firm contacted the Department of Trade and Industry. Eco-Tec is a small firm wanting an export licence. I used to be in business—not in the arms trade, I hasten to add, but selling radio and television stations overseas—and if one does not move quickly on such matters, other countries come in as well. All that the firm wanted to know was whether it needed a licence.
Two months passed and nothing happened. The DTI gave no answer. Finally, we managed to contact the DTI and, as ever with any large organisation, spoke to a number of jobsworths. At last, we got through to a Mr. Richard Hickman. I hope that the Minister is listening, because Mr. Richard Hickman deserves a gold star. Richard Hickman promised that he would contact Mr. Anderson. He did so within hours and the matter was resolved. If Mr. Hickman is here today, he should stand up and we should salute him, because at least he got things moving. However, that is just one small example. If hundreds of applications are going to be made and the DTI get slower in dealing with them, the industry is right to be concerned.

373WH
The important issue of open licences also caused concern in the industry. We have discussed some of the issues. The Government have informed us that open licences are intended to reduce some of the burden of applying for individual licences and to ensure that applications for such licences can be kept to a minimum. We welcome that but we are not sure that it will work in practice. It is worrying when we feel that there has not been a clearly thought through process regarding how the licences will work.
Then there is the question of record keeping. The Government have proposed two options for companies: the prescriptive approach and the functional approach. The Committee believes that industry and the Government should devise a pragmatic record-keeping system between them, which would be sufficient to show compliance and avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on industry. We welcome that. However, there are problems with the electronic transfer of information. If a company is exporting around the world, the quickest way to get something delivered on paper from A to B is by e-mail. In fact, that is the quickest way to get something on paper delivered from A to B in this country, given the postal unrest. Under the draft Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance Order, it is not clear how e-mails and other forms of electronic data should be stored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot raised the question of trade fairs and gave a good advertisement for Farnborough. I am sure that all Quadripartite Committee members will go if we receive tickets, provided that we are let off by the Whips—there might be an important debate that week. The Committee emphasised that it recognised the great importance attached to trade fairs by the British defence industry. The report concluded that there is a danger that the new legislation will make it difficult for participants in trade fairs in the UK to take advantage of spontaneous business opportunities, which do occur. I am not saying that someone will appear at Farnborough and say," I would like to buy a squadron of fighters." However, from time to time, people make spontaneous purchases and although firms have a duty of care to ensure that a spontaneous sale is not made to an unreasonable company or individual, it would be unfortunate if they were overburdened. There needs to be greater flexibility. The industry and I feel that the Government have not addressed the question of trade fairs adequately.
I have raised a series of issues, and many more have been raised in the reports and in the debate today. It behoves the Minister to address those issues. He must turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot: how do the Government intend to achieve the balance between promoting exports and employment in the defence industry and ensuring that arms do not fall into the hands of terrorists and belligerent nations?
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling raised the question of the overseas brokerage of arms and torture equipment. Why can controls in place in the United States not be applied here? If they work in the United States, why can they not work here? Why is there such a loophole regarding the brokerage of small arms and missiles? How can decisions leading to the issue of licences, or a refusal to issue them, be made
374WH
more efficient? At a lime of world instability and terror, does it make any sense for grenade launchers and ground-to-air heat-seeking missiles to be exempt from the brokerage provisions? Is that not a most reckless omission?
Will the Minister clarify that non-UK nationals trading in arms from the UK fall within the ambit of the Export Control Act? When will the Government take action on the sort, of individuals named by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme? Why are such individuals still permitted to carry on with nefarious activities, which cost lives in Zimbabwe and in the poorest parts of Africa? At a time when we are fighting a war against terror, those giant loopholes cannot be allowed to persist. Would it not be both ironic and desperate if those loopholes permitted British weapons, or weapons provided either by people in Britain or by British citizens operating overseas, to be used against us?
The Minister bears a heavy burden of responsibility on export controls. He has a great duty of care to prevent acts of terrorism and belligerence through arms sales. Serious issues have been raised in this debate. They deserve serious answers.
5.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the helpful reports that the Quadripartite Committee has published on both secondary legislation on export control and the annual report. I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions that right hon. and hon. Members have made, and for the serious points that they have raised, which I shall address.
Before I do that, however, may I say how pleased I am to be the Minister who supervised the completion of the most comprehensive and open review of the UK's export control regime for more than 60 years? The review followed Lord Scott's recommendations, and the new legislation consolidates all existing controls, puts on a statutory footing many of the innovations that were introduced on a voluntary basis, such as our annual reports, and extends our control to reflect 21st century technologies. The new controls will ensure that we do better than the assessment that was given by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who was generous enough to say that we have the toughest export control regime in Europe, and will give the UK one of the most comprehensive, open and transparent export control regimes in the world.
That is reflected in the annual report, which, I am told, gives more information than any other annual report. We introduced the annual report on a voluntary basis after taking power in 1997—before then there was no annual report—to aid Parliament's scrutiny of our export licensing and decisions, and to open up the Government's export licensing policy and practice. We have put the reports on a statutory footing to ensure that future Governments cannot cancel them without primary legislation in Parliament. We also hope that placing a statutory requirement on the Government to produce a report every year will ensure even greater transparency.
I am determined to do more, however: to put more information in the public domain, and to work with the Quadripartite Committee to ensure greater

375WH
accountability and transparency in the licensing process. I welcome the Committee's input on the Government's secondary legislation under the Export Control Act 2002, which shows the House's commitment to a strong, effective and transparent UK export control regime. The Committee's helpful report on our secondary legislation proposals also contains a number of recommendations that we have acted on.
We share the same overarching objective that the UK should be actively involved in the fight against proliferation and that the UK strategic export control policy should effectively promote global security. The Government are already committed to assessing all licence applications on a case-by-case basis against other national arms export licensing criteria and the consolidated EU criteria. We are committed to ensuring that UK strategic exports neither contribute to regional instability, internal repression or external aggression, nor seriously undermine the development of poor nations, and we want to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
More than one hon. Member referred to the report in The Guardian, so let me say that the Government have not licensed leg irons, electric shock belts or tear gas for export to Israel. Leg irons and electric shock belts are never approved for export to any country.
The new legislation consolidates the existing controls, which I have referred to in one specific case mentioned by hon. Members. It puts on a statutory footing many innovations that had previously been voluntary, such as the annual report. The 2002 Act ensures that the UK has one of the most comprehensive, open and transparent export control regimes in the world. The Act achieves that by introducing powers to impose controls on the electronic transfer of technology for military goods, and on the transfer of technology intended for use in connection with weapons of mass destruction. It also introduces powers to impose controls on the provision of technical assistance to a WMD programme, and the trafficking and brokering of goods outside the UK. The Act implements the recommendations of the Scott report by providing for greater Government accountability and transparency in the export control regime.
The new weapons of mass destruction controls were first proposed in 1998, but, in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, we all recognise the threat posed by the use of weapons of mass destruction by terrorists and terrorist regimes. In responding to questions about the range of the missiles, it may be helpful if I tell hon. Members that the controls were originally proposed and accepted under arms control regimes, such as the missile technology control regime, which identified the range of 300 km as the threshold of WMD capabilities. I appreciate that it is a problem that weapons of mass destruction below that threshold would not fall under present regimes, and that is why we have addressed the problem.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of terrorism and terrorists. The trafficking in shorter-range missiles by terrorists, or for the purposes of terrorism, is covered in many circumstances by the anti-terrorism legislation, which also has extraterritorial effect. United Nations sanctions are already in place to prevent trafficking and
376WH
brokering to designated terrorists and their associates. We have made it an offence for anyone in the UK, or any UK citizen abroad, to supply or arrange to supply arms to those designated people, wherever they are located.
Mr. Berry: I appreciate my hon. Friend's response to the queries raised, but he said that the issue has been addressed in most circumstances. Will he advise us in which circumstances the issue has not been addressed? Does he acknowledge that if missiles are not covered through the extraterritoriality provisions, they could be supplied to one or two individuals who could subsequently supply them to terrorists? He will appreciate our concerns if we do not have comprehensive extraterritorial control.
Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend's point is covered. One reason why we consider exports on a case-by-case basis is to review reports on where they end up. It is our intention to stop exports being passed on by anyone beyond the designated destination. That is the most effective way to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists, or anyone else.
Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Nigel Griffiths: I shall not, because I want to make progress. Several questions were put and it is unfair to other hon. Members if I do not answer their points in as much detail as I am attempting to answer points already made.
We corrected the anomaly in the previous regime that controls the physical transfer of technology but not the transfer of the same technology—
Sir John Stanley: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Given that there have been two Divisions, could you clarify for the Chamber how much injury time we have beyond 5.30 pm, and at precisely what time you will call for the debate to end?
Mr. Joe Benton: The Chamber will adjourn at 17.54.
Nigel Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Benton.
As I was saying on the key issue of the extension covering the transfer of technology under the new Act, it is covered if it is a physical transfer but not if it is by e-mail or by other electronic means. In 2000, we introduced controls on the electronic transfer of dual-use technology and are extending those powers to cover all electronic transfers of controlled items.
I share the strong desire of all my hon. Friends to control the supply of weapons that fuel so many conflicts throughout the world. We already have stringent controls on exports from the UK, and we will now also have controls on trade overseas. These controls are the first of their kind in UK legislation, and our EU partners recently agreed a common position on arms trafficking and brokering, which is reflected in our new controls.
Since the 1998 White Paper, the Government have consulted extensively on the scope of the controls, and the scope of the legislation and our intention to introduce secondary legislation were set out during the

377WH
Bill's passage through Parliament in 2001–02. The consultation on the draft secondary legislation, which ended on 30 April, provided an opportunity for detailed comments on the operation of the new controls.
The Committee's reports have provided further opportunity to scrutinise the Government's secondary legislation proposals. We have responded in each phase of the consultation process, and have accepted most of the recommendations made by the Committee in its recent report. The new controls are far-reaching. They will challenge industry and the Government, but are also designed to be practical, workable, effective and enforceable in our fight against proliferation. They will affect every aspect of modern defence business.
As we heard today, UK manufacturers have voiced serious concerns about the practical implications of the controls, emphasising the increasing globalisation of the sector. Manufacturers engaged in international collaboration were concerned that they would not be able to communicate easily with partners abroad, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) suggested. The new controls must not undermine legitimate defence exporters who want to abide by the export control regime, nor should they be undermined by shady and unscrupulous illegal arms dealers.
The Committee's report contained helpful recommendations on how the Government should work with industry to ensure effective implementation of the new controls while minimising the burden on legitimate business. As I said, we have acted on most of its recommendations. The DTI has worked closely with business to secure effective solutions to the practical administration of the new controls, and its export control organisation has worked with industry representatives to develop detailed user guidelines that explain how to operate under the new controls. This guidance makes clear the essential record-keeping requirements and how companies will be expected to comply fully with them.
The Quadripartite Committee reflected concerns that defence companies should not have to keep records of all the e-mails that they send out about electronic transfers, which we accept.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
Nigel Griffiths: No, I want to make progress.
We have also agreed that the requirements on record keeping should relate only to technology that is controlled and that can therefore be licensed. They will relate only to the actual transfer of the technology and not to extraneous matters, such as associated follow-up e-mails, which are not part of the actual transfer. We do not require records to be kept of every e-mail to a particular end user if a transfer takes place over a prolonged period. I am informed that it is sufficient to identify the technology transferred, the dates between which it was transferred and the identity of the end user.
As for record keeping for trade transactions under open licences, we recognise that it will not always be possible for businesses to obtain the paperwork from overseas companies on the shipment dates of brokered deals. However, we will require records to be kept of the date on, or period of time over which, the trading activity took place. For example, a project manager in
378WH
the UK who authorises the movements of components between various third countries will have to record the nature of the goods to be transferred and the dates over which the activity took place.
It is vital that the staff of companies fully understand their responsibilities. Compliance officers from ECO will work closely with industry throughout the implementation period to ensure that staff are fully prepared for those record-keeping requirements and that they are fully aware of what is required in order to be compliant.
I welcome the Committee's strong endorsement of the need to maximise the use of open licensing to minimise the burdens on legitimate industry and to enable us to focus our licensing effort on the areas of most concern. The user guidance sets out what licences will be available under the new controls. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), the Chairman of the Committee, and to the Committee as a whole for supporting the need to maximise the use of open licensing to
"minimise the regulatory burden on legitimate business, and in particular to ensure that new business is not lost."
That will enable us to focus the licensing efforts on the areas of most concern.
In addition to extending existing licences automatically to cover electronic transfers, an open general licence is available to cover most transfers of goods involving the EU and most other OECD countries. If the trade is to a destination that is too sensitive to be included on the open general licences, companies will have to apply for open individual licences.
The Committee reflected industry's legitimate concern that some employees may inadvertently breach export controls by opening their e-mails while abroad. A new open general licence will cover remote access of controlled military technology to allow persons authorised by the exporter and normally based in the UK to access their intranet site in the UK from a temporary destination overseas, but only for their own personal use and on condition that the technology would not be further disseminated.
Two new open licences are being introduced. The first will permit the export of most goods on the military list—
Mr. Howarth: The Minister is dealing with the particular point that I raised about accessing computers. He says that the individual should not be able to disseminate that information. What would happen if that individual were to open his e-mail and find information there that was not available to him when he left the UK, and then discuss that information with, for example, his joint strike fighter partner in the United States, or with a potential customer?
Nigel Griffiths: What is important is that a record is kept of all those transactions. We are trying to make it clear that an e-mail such as that would be highly pertinent to the export licence relating to technology, compared with communications of a less significant or insignificant nature between the employee and their base in the UK.

379WH
We are introducing two new open licences, one to permit the export of most goods on the military list, provided that the export relates to an eligible UK Government contract. The second will permit the supply of goods and technology as set out in the licence to UK forces engaged in a specific operation. There will be such an open licence for each operation. Unusually, those licences will include nuclear, biological and chemical equipment, which is typically excluded from open general licences, due to the potential for it to be misused if it falls into the wrong hands, and assist illicit WMD programmes. Those licences specifically address the Committee's concern that the new controls could impede industry's ability to fulfil contracts with the Ministry of Defence and provide operational support to UK armed forces, in particular protection for our troops from nuclear, biological or chemical attacks.
Recommendation 21 of the Committee's report highlighted the importance of trade fairs to British defence manufacturers—a point that was raised by more than one hon. Member today. Following discussions with the organisers of major trade fairs, it is clear that the speculative marketing activity that typically takes place will not fall within the definition of trafficking and brokering because the legislation refers to a specific activity done in return for a consideration. That will be kept under review. T he Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and trade associations will ensure that a full package of information and guidance on the controls and available licences is provided to companies registering to attend trade fairs. We have secured the agreement of fair organisers to ensure that overseas exhibitors and visitors are made aware of the new controls and agree to abide by them.
As Minister with responsibility for export control, I have taken several steps to ensure that the system of considering licences is made more efficient. I introduced timelines to ensure that all Departments providing input into licences were aware of unacceptable delays. Partly as a result of that, for the first nine months of this calendar year the Government have for the first time exceeded the target of processing 70 per cent. of standard individual licence applications in 20 days. I am glad that the constituents of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) have benefited from a speedy decision.
380WH
We have focused on reducing the number of longstanding export licence applications and have successfully reduced them to less than a handful. When I became Minister, over 174 cases were more than six months old and approximately 270 were between three and six months old. At the end of October, we had only three cases more than six months old and 25 between three and six months old. I am now looking at them individually.
The Committee stressed the need for the civil service to be geared up to operate the controls effectively. ECO is reorganising and will redeploy staff. New processes are being introduced as a result of the JEWEL project—joined-up more efficient ways of export licensing—to ensure that all relevant Departments work together and that applications are dealt with expeditiously. We are formulating new performance indicators, IT systems, business processes, joint working arrangements and our interface with exporters to achieve a speedy and fair processing of the controls, whether the answer is yes or no.
The Committee urged that transitional periods for implementing the secondary legislation should not be unduly protracted. I met representatives of the industry last week and was pressed for a delay in the implementation period of the orders. Suggestions ranged from 12 months to a rather longer period. I have considered that carefully and, in the light of the Committee's request for a "modest delay" in implementation, I have already agreed to twice the normally recommended implementation period. I am informed that six months should be adequate for industry to prepare. The user guidance will set out in detail the practical record-keeping requirements under the new controls and how businesses will be expected to comply with them.
In addition, to assist industry preparations and ensure full compliance, ECO is already holding seminars on the new controls and, together with trade associations, will hold further seminars, workshops and regional roadshows in the new year to raise awareness and understanding of the new controls and the licences available. Officials have agreed to monitor industry preparations, through the seminars and from direct feedback from compliance visits, to ensure that staff are fully prepared for the record-keeping requirements and aware of what is required in order to be—
It being six minutes to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

PRIME MINISTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to announce new appointments to the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and if he will make a statement. [137420]

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed two new members to the Committee.

  The right hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) DL MP takes up appointment as the Conservative Party nominee in succession to the right hon. Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market OBE. Baroness Maddock takes up appointment as the Liberal Democrat Party nominee in succession to Lord Goodhart QC. Both appointments are for three years in the first instance.

  The right hon. Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market and Lord Goodhart are both stepping down from the Committee on completion of their second terms of appointment. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them both for the valuable work they have undertaken on the Committee over the last six years, and the significant contribution they have made to improving standards in public life.

  Departmental Expenditure (Official Residences)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was spent on(a) maintenance, (b) renovation, (c) council tax and (d) running costs of residential properties used by the Prime Minister and officials in each year since 1997. [134696]

  The Prime Minister
  For running costs and the cost of maintenance, renovation and council tax of residential properties in Downing street, I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 22 July 2002,Official Report, column 804W, and on 28 February 2002, Official Report, columns 1443-44W.

  Expenditure on routine maintenance work to the flat above No. 11 Downing street for 2001–02 was £32,949.

  Final figures for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  For Chequers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for north Devon (Mr. Harvey) on 13 February 2003, Official Report, column 952W.

  The annual grant for maintenance and to cover civilian staff employed at Chequers for 2002–03 was £499,817.

  The Chequers Trust is responsible for paying the council tax on all Chequers estate property.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) with whom he has communicated to try to find a way in which he can disclose certain information given to him and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic by General de Chastelain; and what the responses have been; [136948]

  (2) pursuant to his statement of 22 October 2003, Official Report, column 634, on Northern Ireland, when he expects to be able to reveal the information given to him and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic by General de Chastelain to which he referred; and what the evidential basis was for his statement that on the basis of what he and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic know that people would be satisfied if they knew the full details; [136949]

  (3) whether during his conversation with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic and General de Chastelain he obtained from the latter facts which were not in the General's press conferences and statement. [136950]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) at Prime Minister's Questions on 29 October 2003,Official Report, column 300.

TRANSPORT

  Bus Lanes
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make regulations to allow cameras to be used to enforce bus lanes outside London; and if he will make a statement. [136362]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 enables regulations to be made so that local authorities outside London can enforce bus lanes using cameras to detect vehicles being driven in them illegally. The work on the preparation of the regulations including resolving relevant legal points has taken longer than expected but the Department for Transport and the Department for Constitutional Affairs hope to be able to make the relevant regulations later this year.

  MOT Testers
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the number of MOT testers; and if he will make a statement. [136183]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None—there is no evidence to suggest that there is a shortage of qualified MOT testers. Currently there are around 19,500 MOT testing stations with 50,000 testers. There is no restriction on the number of garages that can apply to become MOT testing stations and, once designated, garages can employ as many MOT testers as they wish.

  Railways
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects trains from Liverpool to London to travel at speeds of 125 mph. [136453]
  727W
  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: It is expected that the modernisation of the West Coast Main Line will enable train services, including those from London to Liverpool, to travel at speeds of up to 125 mph from the autumn of 2004.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety implications for road users of speed cameras. [136082]

  Mr. Jamieson
  On 11 February 2003 the Department published an independently produced evaluation report of the two-year trial of the safety camera cost recovery system. This showed a 35 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured at camera sites, equating to around 280 people and a 4 per cent. reduction in those killed or seriously injured across the pilot areas, equating to around 530 people.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce further regulations on the fitness of individuals to drive. [136085]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have an on-going research programme into fitness to drive, the results of which will help inform the Secretary of State's Honorary Medical Advisory Panels in relation to their advice on the driver licensing standards.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is introducing to reduce the numbers of children under the age of 16 who are killed or receive a serious head injury as a result of a cycling accident. [136422]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have produced a large body of material on cycle safety aimed at younger children promoting the use of cycle helmets as well as other cycle safety messages such as conspicuity and training. We have also developed a Cycle Sense campaign aimed at teenagers that was launched on 21 May this year. The campaign encourages teenagers to wear cycle helmets and consists of posters and a new cycle sense website.

  Traffic Management Bill
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will comply with the Cabinet Office's guidance on consultation when consulting on the detailed regulations which accompany the Traffic Management Bill. [136802]

  Mr. McNulty
  We will comply with Cabinet Office guidance when consulting on any such regulations.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to consult the utilities companies on the detailed regulations that will accompany the Traffic Management Bill. [136803]

  Mr. McNulty
  We will be consulting widely not only with utility companies, but also with local authorities and other relevant bodies.

  UK Airport Security
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers exist to authorise security staff at United Kingdom airports to examine passengers' luggage, by 728W
  force if necessary, without the knowledge or consent of the passenger; and how many times they have been exercised in the past 12 months. [136796]

  Mr. McNulty
  Aerodrome managers and aircraft operators are directed through secondary legislation, made under the Aviation Security Act 1982, to examine passenger baggage to a standard sufficient reasonably to ensure that no prohibited articles are taken into a restricted zone or onto an aircraft. Where passengers refuse to permit such an examination, the baggage is not allowed to pass beyond the point of search. If the baggage is not accompanied by its owner, and x-ray screening of a bag has not resolved all doubts, the aircraft operator is permitted by direction to search the bag by hand. Searching unaccompanied hold baggage by hand is therefore rarely necessary.

  Underground (Vandalism)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many prosecutions there have been by British Transport Police for acts of vandalism on(a) on tube trains, (b) in tube stations and (c) on tube lines in each of the last 10 years. [136524]

  Mr. McNulty
  Vandalism is not classified as a crime group but the offence of criminal damage is the closest equivalent. Prosecutions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. However, the BTP have provided the information in Table 1 regarding the number of people arrested, summonsed or charged with criminal damage in the past six years, which is the maximum period for which reliable data are available. Table 2 shows the total number of criminal damage offences reported and cleared for the last 10 years. Table 3 gives a breakdown for criminal damage offences reported and cleared, split between tube stations, tube lines and tube trains for the last four years, the maximum period for which reliable data are available.

  Table 1

  Time period (1 October-30 September)

  Number of Persons Arrested Charged/Summonsed for criminal damage offences

  1997–98

  92

  1998–99

  75

  1999–2000

  82

  2000–01

  98

  2001–02

  64

  2002–03

  152

  Table 2

  Criminal Damage Offences (1 April-31 March)

  Reported

  Cleared

  2002–03

  925

  119

  2001–02

  725

  139

  2000–01

  693

  136

  1999–2000

  697

  135

  1998–99

  715

  173

  1997–98

  896

  336

  1996–97

  780

  187

  1995–96

  978

  191

  1994–95

  1,042

  154

  1993–94

  1,391

  122

  729W

  Table 3

  Criminal Damage Offences (1 April-31 March)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Offences at tube stations:

  376

  340

  366

  361

  Cleared:

  85

  96

  92

  70

  Offences on tube lines:

  46

  26

  65

  125

  Cleared:

  10

  20

  14

  8

  Offences on tube trains:

  295

  292

  302

  426

  Cleared:

  34

  31

  32

  41

  Total Offences:

  717

  658

  733

  912

  Cleared:

  129

  147

  138

  119

  Data in Table 3 differ slightly from data in Table 2 as it has been extracted on crime committed date as opposed to approved date. A crime report has an approved date, which is the date the crime report has been evaluated and is often different to the date committed. Therefore crime figures will differ slightly depending on which date is used.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service Secondments (Science and Technology)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what action has been taken to bring more people from science and technology backgrounds into the Civil Service on secondments as recommended by the Council for Science and Technology in its review in 1999 of Science and Technology Across Government. [133944]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to developing a modern, flexible and outward focused Civil Service that works in partnership with all sectors of society. A key tool in meeting that commitment is the Interchange initiative, which promotes and encourages

  Main farm type—1993 to 2002: June agricultural census—England

  Main farm types

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Cereals

  20,443

  20,212

  19,960

  20,379

  21,085

  General cropping

  13,318

  13,031

  12,909

  12,828

  11,696

  Specialist fruit

  1,589

  1,578

  1,408

  1,435

  1,492

  Specialist glass

  3,472

  3,346

  3,034

  2,808

  2,743

  Other horticulture

  3,593

  3,307

  2,990

  2,858

  3,227

  Specialist pigs

  2,441

  2,342

  2,137

  2,080

  2,236

  Specialist poultry

  2,903

  2,801

  2,445

  2,557

  2,959

  Mixed pigs and poultry

  129

  121

  111

  110

  152

  Dairy—LFA

  3,797

  3,673

  3,421

  3,213

  2,996

  Dairy—lowland

  16,987

  16,906

  16,211

  15,691

  15,011

  Specialist sheep—SDA

  2,641

  2,524

  2,390

  2,320

  2,318

  Specialist beef—SDA

  1,805

  1,725

  1,737

  1,703

  1,618

  Mixed cattle and sheep—SDA

  3,537

  3,395

  3,257

  3,003

  2,843

  Cattle and sheep—DA

  3,365

  3,266

  3,129

  2,941

  2,866

  Cattle and sheep—Lowland

  31,880

  32,589

  31,024

  31,173

  30,878

  Cropping and dairy

  1,714

  1,615

  1,604

  1,578

  1,634

  Cropping cattle and sheep

  6,155

  6,221

  6,256

  6,128

  5,858

  Cropping pig and poultry

  1,191

  1,161

  1,109

  1,106

  1,118

  Cropping and mixed livestock

  633

  666

  658

  572

  602

  Mixed livestock

  2,009

  1,940

  1,799

  1,896

  2,121

  Specialist mushrooms

  173

  183

  167

  155

  146

  Specialist hardy nursery stock

  1,094

  1,077

  1,126

  1,188

  1,104

  Specialist set-aside

  1,309

  1,238

  1,104

  1,044

  937

  Specialist grass and forage

  17,563

  18,260

  16,506

  16,638

  16,897

  Specialist goats

  520

  512

  355

  359

  337

  Specialist horses

  8,301

  8,879

  8,590

  9,149

  9,166

  Non-classifiable—fallow

  401

  406

  296

  283

  285

  Non-classifiable—other

  459

  452

  379

  443

  452

  All types

  153,422

  153,426

  146,112

  145,638

  144,777

  730W
  the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. Most organisations from anywhere in the country can take part and all sectors of the economy are encouraged to do so.

  Individual Departments are directly responsible for the staff they bring in to help them deliver their objectives, including secondees. Information on secondments into the Civil Service is recorded separately by Departments. The Cabinet office holds aggregate data, though not specifically on secondees from a science and technology background.

  Since financial year 1998–99, there have been, on average, around 4,000 instances of interchange taking place each year of which about half are inward to the Civil Service.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Agriculture and Horticulture Holdings
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many agriculture and horticulture holdings in the United Kingdom there were which were mainly(a) beef, (b) dairy, (c) sheep, (d) pigs, (e) poultry meat, (f) poultry egg, (g) fruit and vegetables, (h) flowers and other non edible crops, (i) energy crops, (j) arable, (k) mixed and (l) other in each of the last 10 years for which records are available. [135769]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Agricultural and horticultural holdings are classified annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census into 27 different types.

  For the last 10 years the figures are:
  731W

  Main farm types

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Cereals

  21,473

  20,905

  20,996

  21,340

  21,258

  General cropping

  11,239

  11,119

  9,861

  9,991

  9,200

  Specialist fruit

  1,645

  1,554

  2,647

  2,675

  2,553

  Specialist glass

  2,826

  2,771

  2,741

  2,671

  2,604

  Other horticulture

  3,026

  3,019

  3,260

  3,143

  3,368

  Specialist pigs

  2,171

  1,920

  1,893

  1,981

  2,160

  Specialist poultry

  3,179

  3,437

  4,100

  4,680

  4,685

  Mixed pigs and poultry

  113

  104

  129

  130

  146

  Dairy—LFA

  3,014

  2,895

  2,605

  2,584

  2,662

  Dairy—lowland

  14,000

  13,418

  12,614

  11,522

  11,680

  Specialist sheep—SDA

  2,665

  2,845

  2,875

  2,996

  3,388

  Specialist beef—SDA

  1,901

  1,885

  1,652

  1,850

  1,943

  Mixed cattle and sheep—SDA

  3,154

  3,037

  2,913

  2,915

  3,043

  Cattle and sheep—DA

  2,835

  2,880

  2,657

  2,944

  3,389

  Cattle and sheep—Lowland

  29,893

  31,269

  32,816

  31,306

  3,3778

  Cropping and dairy

  1,679

  1,565

  1,401

  1,198

  1,181

  Cropping cattle and sheep

  5,772

  5,680

  5,573

  5,397

  5,179

  Cropping pig and poultry

  1,173

  1,046

  959

  930

  809

  Cropping and mixed livestock

  611

  647

  998

  1,086

  1,048

  Mixed livestock

  2,044

  1,814

  1,984

  2,045

  2,067

  Specialist mushrooms

  140

  152

  141

  94

  40

  Specialist hardy nursery stock

  883

  848

  995

  999

  995

  Specialist set-aside

  859

  988

  1,035

  1,340

  1,341

  Specialist grass and forage

  18,256

  21,175

  24,298

  25,781

  23,476

  Specialist goats

  346

  408

  809

  1,127

  1,690

  Specialist horses

  9,420

  9,026

  14,326

  14,967

  16,845

  Non-classifiable—fallow

  302

  305

  541

  548

  580

  Non-classifiable—other

  474

  508

  11,036

  19,694

  26,763

  All types

  145,093

  147,220

  167,855

  177,934

  187,871

  Abbreviation

  LFA—Less Favoured Area

  SDA—Severely Disadvantaged Area

  DA—Disadvantaged Area

  Notes:

  1. 1993 to 1999 figures refer to main holding only.

  2. 2000 onwards—main and minor holding.

  Aquaculture Research
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many aquaculture research projects were commissioned by her Department from the Ardtoe Marine Farming Unit in each year since 1997; and what the(a) subject and (b) cost of each project was. [136157]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: Aquaculture research projects commissioned by Defra from the Sea Fish Industry Authority's Marine Farming Unit at Ardtoe since 1997 are as follows:

  FC0107—environmental control of halibut broodstock and rearing procedures for feeding larvae; 1993–98; total cost £515,400;

  FC0905—halibut egg and early larval rearing; 1998; total cost £20,000;

  FC1011—development strategy for the UK shellfish cultivation industry; 2000–01; total cost £45,000; and

  FC1140—economic evaluation to assess the output potential of the UK shellfish cultivation industry; 2000; £45,000.

  Details of Defra research projects may be viewed at the following website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/research/project.

  Chemical Industry
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the REACH proposals for regulation of the chemical industry. [136681]

  Alun Michael
  The Government is committed to the new EU Chemicals Strategy, which aims to improve protection for human health and the environment. The new EU Chemicals Strategy is trying to address the fact that thousands of chemicals have been used for many years without adequate information about their hazardous properties or what risks are involved in their short-term and long-term use. In doing so, the proposal for new chemicals legislation, which was adopted by the European Commission on 29 October 2003, should create greater transparency and help identify chemicals of concern.

  In the forthcoming negotiations the UK has three overarching objectives:
  To create a fast, efficient and workable process of testing, screening and assessing substances of concern, starting with the most harmful, because of their impact on human health or the environment;
  To keep animal testing to the minimum necessary to protect human health and the environment; and
  To maintain or enhance the competitiveness of the chemical industry and downstream users.
  733W
  We are currently considering the Commission proposal to assess how far it meets these objectives. The Government will carry out a UK consultation early in the new year which will be accompanied by a regulatory impact assessment, and provide an opportunity for all interested stakeholders to express their views.

  Dairy Farming
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) farmers, (b) partners, (c) directors and (d) spouses were engaged in dairy farming in each of the last five years. [135745]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data for the total number farmers, partners, directors and spouses combined are collected annually from the June agricultural and horticultural census as a total. Figures are not available for each item.

  For the last five years the figures are:

  Farmers, directors, partners and spouses on holdings with a dairy herd June agricultural census—England

  Number

  1998

  47,591

  1999

  47,151

  2000

  43,150

  2001

  40,702

  2002

  40,906

  Notes

  1. Dairy Herd—holdings with Dairy cows producing milk.

  2.1999 and 1998 figures refer to main holdings only.

  3.2000 onwards—main and minor holdings.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many dairy farmers have left the industry in the last 10 years for which records are available. [135770]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Data on the number of farmers leaving the dairy industry are not collected by Defra. From the June Agricultural and Horticultural Census, we can provide the numbers of farmers, partners, directors and spouses. From these figures it will be possible to determine the net difference year on year.

  For the last 10 years the figures are:

  Farmers, directors, partners and spouses on holdings with a dairy herd June agricultural census—England

  Farmers, directors, spouses, partners

  1993

  50,402

  1994

  49,592

  1995

  47,515

  1996

  46,150

  1997

  48,066

  1998

  47,591

  1999

  45,151

  2000

  43,150

  2001

  40,702

  2002

  40,906

  Notes

  1. Dairy Herd—holdings with Dairy cows producing milk.

  2. 1993 to 1999 figures refer to main holdings only.

  3. 2000 onwards—main and minor holdings.

  Date-based Export Scheme
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library papers submitted by her Department to the European Commission on(a) changes to the Date Based Export Scheme and (b) moderate risk status; and how many representations her Department has made to the Commission regarding these papers subsequently. [134660]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Copies of the papers submitted will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Secretary of State has discussed these issues with Commissioner Byrne on a number of occasions, most recently on 22 September at the informal Agriculture Council at Taormina. Defra officials have also met Commission officials on a number of occasions, and are in regular contact with them.

  Direct Production Payments
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the 100 farmers who received the largest direct production payments in the last year for which information is available; and how much each received. [132452]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are unable to supply information on individual payments under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998 unless such details are allowed by any of the exemptions to the Act. If such exemptions can be identified, then further consideration can be given to the request.

  Earth Summit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress that has been made by her Department to meet the outcomes of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. [136112]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 1 September 2003,Official Report, column 845W, which noted that the Government would be presenting an overview of progress against commitments made at the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. That progress report, which covers actions across Government, has now been published and is available at: http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/eac-wssd/progress.htm

  GM Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned into coexistence on a commercial scale between GM and non-GM crops that takes account of the interactions and relationships between seed contamination, volunteers, spillage and cross-pollination. [136234]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra has commissioned a number of studies relevant to co-existence to complement those undertaken by others. These include a report published in 2000 by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany on crop separation distances needed to achieve specified cross-pollination thresholds. Details of other studies
  735W
  including studies on cross-pollination between GM and conventional crops and between GM crops and wild relatives and studies on the persistence and weediness of GM crop volunteers are available through the Defra website a: www.defra.gov.uldenvironment/gm/research/index.htm The European Commission also published a major research study on this subject last year, available at: www.jrc.es/home/publications/publication.cfm?pub = 1044 The body of literature was also recently reviewed by the GM Science Review Panel as part of the GM Dialogue, and their final report is available at: www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk

  The Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has been analysing possible approaches to co-existence and is due to submit a report to the Government later this month. We will consider this issue further in the light of that report.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the petition from residents within the Havering area opposing GM crops. [136475]

  Mr. Morley
  We have no record of receiving the specific petition to which the hon. Member refers, but the Government certainly recognise that people have concerns on this subject. We already have strict and transparent safety controls on GM crops, along with clear labelling rules to ensure consumer choice. The Government are now considering the outcome of the GM public debate that they have sponsored and will make a response to this in due course.

  Livestock Industry
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions her Department has had with(a) industry representatives, (b) the Food Standards Agency and (c) others in respect of the regulatory framework which applies to (i) mobile slaughter operators and (ii) the livestock farmers who employ them. [136263]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The public health aspects of the slaughter of animals for human consumption are a matter for the Food Standards Agency. The Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 (as amended) require that no person shall carry on the business of a slaughterhouse unless the premises are licensed under the Regulations. Furthermore the Regulations also require that no person shall sell fresh meat for human consumption unless it has been slaughtered in a licensed slaughterhouse. Consequently it is unlawful for a mobile licensed slaughter man to kill and dress an animal for human consumption outside of licensed premises. At a meeting in February this year, at which Defra officials were present, the Agency explained the regulatory framework to representatives of the National Farmers Union. Subsequently officials from both the Department and the Agency participated in a meeting arranged by the Union, at which representatives of the Union and former mobile slaughter operators were present, to discuss how the framework could apply to the licensing of mobile slaughterhouses.
  736W
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from(a) industry representatives and (b) others in respect of regulations which apply to mobile slaughter operators. [136264]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The National Farmers Union, Members of Parliament and members of the public have been in contact with the Department about the regulatory framework that applies to the slaughter of animals for human consumption and in particular the private kill of animals on farm.

  Pair Trawling (Bass)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps the Government are taking to introduce an outright ban on pair trawling for bass; and what assessment she has made of the use of separator grids to preserve dolphin wildlife in the United Kingdom. [134849]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 28 October 2003]: Defra-funded trials to reduce cetacean bycatch in the offshore bass fishery have demonstrated that separator grids are a viable means of minimising dolphin bycatch in this fishery. The very significantly reduced mortality rate overall in this trial compared with observations on boats over previous years is extremely encouraging. Two animals died in 82 hauls over a seven-week period beginning in March this year, a significant reduction in what is normally observed to be the case. In observations elsewhere in the fishery without the grid deployed, 28 dolphin casualties were recorded in 49 hauls.

  On the basis of these results, we will be moving forward from trialling the separator grid to deploying the gear in the fishery. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of the grid and adjust as necessary. If an effective reduction in small cetacean bycatch cannot be maintained through the use of the grid, I do not rule out other options such as closure of the offshore-bass fishery.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received in the last six months about the eradication of genome groups under the scrapie plan; and if she will make a statement. [135378]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Defra has regular contact with stakeholders to discuss a wide range of issues relating to the National Scrapie Plan. Among these are a bi-annual stakeholder forum and various ad hoc industry focus group meetings to discuss and assist in the development of proposals and initiatives to further improve and enhance the National Scrapie Plan.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of sheep annual premium payments were paid more than two months late in England in the last 24 months. [135380]
  737W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  As detailed in the table, 0.15 per cent. of 2001 Sheep Annual Premium Scheme (SAPS) claims and 0.18 per cent. of 2002 claims were paid two months later than their respective scheme year payment deadlines.

  Scheme Year

  2001

  2002

  Total claims received

  30,363

  27,083

  Claims paid two months later than the EU payment deadline1

  Number

  46

  49

  Percentage

  0.15

  0.18

  1 These relate claims under query.

  The payment window for SAPS 2003 opened on 16 October 2003. To date, 98 per cent. of claims have been paid.

  Tenant Farmers (Rents)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the implications for tenant farmers of rural development for rents under the revised Common Agricultural Policy. [134842]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The biggest implication for tenant farmers arises from the decoupling of support from production. This will mean that all farmers, including tenants, will have more flexibility in terms of what they produce. This is because the support they receive will no longer be dependent on the types of crop or livestock they farm. Taking the reforms as a whole, it is difficult to forecast the precise effects reform might have on rents. However, where tenants continue to farm and claim support the requirement for land will continue to underpin the land rental market. Further work is planned in this area and we hope to make the results generally available in due course.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister for Women, what steps she is taking to help regional development agencies to encourage women to participate in the labour market. [136670]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Regional Development Agencies have a remit to promote skills, enterprise and labour market participation in their regions. All of these, including the provision of child care, are relevant to women's participation in the labour market.

  Equal Pay
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Minister for Women, if she will make a statement on progress with the equal pay audits in Government Departments. [136671]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government have made a commitment for Civil Service departments and agencies to undertake equal pay reviews and prepare action plans. Action plans representing 99 per cent. of the Civil Service have now been received by the Cabinet Office.
  738W
  The Government will shortly be publishing a summary of the findings from pay review action plans.

  Iraq
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Minister for Women, what action she is taking to ensure that Iraqi women are fully involved in all plans for the(a) reconstruction and (b) Government of Iraq. [136672]

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps she is taking to ensure that Iraqi women play a part in the leadership of Iraq. [136668]

  Ms Hewitt
  Two weeks ago I met Dr. Raja Khuzaai, one of the two female members of the Iraqi Governing Council. In July I met the US Special Envoy, Amb. Bremer, in Baghdad. I impressed on him the importance of women's full involvement in the emerging political structures—this includes the Constitutional reform process.

  I have pledged my full support for the establishment of an Iraqi Women's Higher Council—a non-governmental advisory body on women's issues.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Engineering Investment
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what recent discussions she has held with employers in the engineering sector regarding their plans for investment. [136687]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have benefited from a number of opportunities, both in writing and in person, to discuss a wide range of issues with representatives of the engineering sector.

  Employment Rights (Parents)
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what action she has taken to ensure that there is a high take-up of the new rights for parents of young children. [136688]

  Jacqui Smith
  The package of new laws implemented this April provides parents with more choice and more support about how they balance work and childcare in ways that benefit everyone: employers, employees and children. The Government have produced a wide package of support to promote take-up including guidance and case studies in booklets on the web. National adverts at the time of implementation and in October have ensured a high level of awareness. In addition, we have supported other bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses and Fathers Direct, to produce their own material.

  Research and Development
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what plans she has to increase research and development expenditure in the regions. [136691]

  Ms Hewitt
  All regions stand to benefit from the action taken by the Government to boost public R&D through the last three spending reviews and to
  739W
  encourage business R&D through the tax credits. However, Government research and development spending is largely organised on a national basis as it the best means of securing value for money and driving up excellence. But the Regional Development Agencies are in an excellent position to advise on knowledge transfer in the regions and are fully engaged in the formal role of the deployment of next round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund.

  Demolition/Waste Removal Sector (Insurance)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to ensure that all(a) demolition contractors and (b) waste removal companies have insurance cover. [136692]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Employers Liability is a statutory insurance. Enforcement for non-compliance is undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive. The Government have been actively working with stakeholders to reform and improve the existing enforcement arrangements.

  If the hon. Member has details of any company breaking this statutory requirement, he should forward the details to the HSE.

  Bechtel
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the contracts for consultancy and other work carried out by Bechtel in each year since 1997, stating in each case(a) the nature of the work, (b) the value of the contract and (c) the duration of the contract; and if she will make a statement. [135901]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: The Department has placed one direct contract with Bechtel since 1997. The work covers the provision of technical support and assistance to the Department's Liabilities Management Unit in carrying out its remit to prepare the ground for the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The Department paid Bechtel £8.044 million for its work in 2002–03. The contract was placed on 10 June 2002 for a two-year duration, with options to extend for a further period of up to five years.

  Broadband
  Mr. Luke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she has taken to increase availability of broadband in the more disadvantaged areas of the UK [136682]

  Mr. Timms
  Broadband is available to 80 per cent. of households in the UK which is higher than in Italy, France and the USA. The DTI is working with the Devolved Administrations (DAs) and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to extend the availability of broadband still further. We have given them £30 million for pilot schemes to extend the availability of broadband. This has stimulated further regional schemes worth at least £377 million over 2000–06.
  740W
  In England, the Broadband Aggregation Project will make sure that the £1 billion that the Government will spend on broadband connectivity for the public sector between 2003–06 will offer best value for money and widen availability. We have also set up a joint DTI/Defra Rural Broadband Team to address the issue of broadband availability in rural areas.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on Government action to encourage fair trade initiatives. [135508]

  Ms Hewitt
  I strongly support the aims of the Fairtrade movement. It gives a clear indication to consumers that disadvantaged producer groups in developing countries receive a minimum price above that offered by mainstream markets.

  A real strength of the Fairtrade movement has been in raising awareness among mainstream retailers about the importance of managing supply chains to maximise benefits to the poor, and in raising public awareness of important development issues surrounding trade. That is why the Government, through the Department for International Development (DFID) has provided £500,000 in support of UK development awareness and education campaigns centred on Fairtrade over the past two years. My hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate and Social Responsibility met business leaders last year to encourage greater take-up of Fairtrade products. I have ensured that Fairtrade tea and coffee is made available throughout the DTI offices and many of my Cabinet colleagues have responded to my urging to do likewise.

  The Fairtrade market, despite recent rapid growth, remains small (£63 million in 2002). Through DFID's support for initiatives such as the Ethical Trading Initiative (£1.3 million over three years 2002–04)—an alliance of UK retail companies, NGOs and trade unions working to improve labour conditions in the supply chains of its corporate members—we are able to contribute to improving the working conditions under which £100 billion of goods are produced each year.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to launch a public awareness programme after the introduction of the fireworks regulations. [136286]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  A communication strategy to make those affected aware of the new regulations is in preparation and will be finalised when the timing and details of the regulations are decided.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had and plans to have with(a) police forces and (b) local authorities about the implementation of the new fireworks regulations and their enforcement. [136287]
  741W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department has had preliminary discussions on fireworks regulations both to come into force before the end of the year and those regulatory proposals scheduled for implementation later on, in 2004.

  Specifically, with respect to (a), discussions have taken place on the powers required by the police to enforce possession offences under the Act; and, (b), on the role of local authorities in setting up the requisite machinery for the planned national curfew on firework use, which will be a part of the raft of measures to come into force in 2004.

  We will continue consultations and discussions on all proposed regulations in the coming months.

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her policy that the sections of the Fireworks Act 2003 that concern anti-social behaviour and fireworks should be in force by Christmas [135922]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department will implement two provisions of the Fireworks Act 2003 by the end of this year—those concerned with the antisocial use of fireworks. Those are:

  a prohibition on the possession of fireworks in public places by those under the age of 18; and

  a prohibition on the possession of category 4 fireworks by the general public.

  Other aspects of the Act concerned with both supply and other antisocial behaviour issues we intend to implement by the summer of 2004.

  Inward Investment (Indian Businesses)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on investment by Indian businesses in the UK. [136693]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are more than 440 Indian investments in the UK with 19 new investments last year creating 316 new jobs.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) proportion and (b) volume in financial terms of manufacturing conducted by companies registered in the UK (i) was carried out within the UK in 1993 and (ii) is carried out within the UK now; and what estimate her Department has made of the (A) proportion and (B) volume in (x) 2004, (y) 2008 and (z) 2013. [135081]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to encourage young people to work in the manufacturing sector. [135505]

  Ms Hewitt
  Through the Government's National Skills Strategy we are working closely with all sectors of industry, and other stakeholders, to ensure that employers have access to the right skills to support their businesses and organisations. This is complemented by recent changes to the National Curriculum to add
  742W
  vocational choice, which will encourage young people to understand the opportunities that careers in various sectors, including manufacturing, can offer them.

  The DTI also published a Manufacturing Strategy, in May 2002, which set out seven areas of activity for manufacturing success, one of which was raising skills and education levels.

  Modern Apprenticeships are central to this Government's drive to improve the opportunities for work-based vocational training. Our target is that by 2004, 28 per cent. of young people will start a modern apprenticeship by age 22. To aid us in this task we have has set up a Modern Apprenticeship Taskforce to look at ways to increase the opportunities available for young people to participate in high quality Modern Apprenticeships and to recommend effective and innovative ways of ensuring that Modern Apprenticeship programmes respond to the changing needs of employers and young people.

  Many of the new Sector Skills Councils are helping to promote careers in manufacturing. In particular, SEMTA is supporting SETNET and financing careers advice; Skillfast UK has produced CDs containing careers advice for use in schools and colleges; and Pro-skills is developing a sandwiched based student apprenticeship programme.

  My Department continues to support the SETNET scheme, which was created in 1996 to raise interest in science, engineering, technology and mathematics (STEM) in young people (between five and 18) by showing them that they can lead to interesting and rewarding careers—which clearly includes the manufacturing sector. SETNET operates through 53 local SETPOINTS around the UK and is involved in the provision of schemes, resources and initiatives to enrich the delivery of STEM activities in schools.

  We are also taking steps to encourage interest in manufacturing and other STEM careers among women and ethnic minorities.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to improve levels of manufacturing business investment. [136690]

  Jacqui Smith
  By maintaining a stable macroeconomic climate, together with measures such as reforming capital gains tax, making permanent enhanced capital allowances for small and medium sized firms, and introducing the R&
  D tax credit, we are providing a climate conducive to investment for the long-term in UK manufacturing.

  Ofgem Guidance
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Ofgem on the guidance they give to(a) hon. Members and (b) constituents on difficulties in obtaining responses from the Customer Relations Department of npower. [R] [136801]
  743W
  Mr. Timms
  Ministers at the DTI have not had any recent discussions on these matters with Ofgem. Constituents who have had difficulty in resolving problems with gas and electricity suppliers should, in the first instance, contact the statutory consumer body, the Gas and Electricity Consumer Council (Energywatch), not Ofgem.

  Patents
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions as approved by the European Parliament on 24 September; and if she will make a statement. [136202]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: In considering the best ways to encourage innovation in the UK, the Government believe that a fair and effective intellectual property system, for software as well as for other areas of technology, plays a central part in developing and protecting new ideas. The aim of the UK Government and the European Commission, in the proposed directive on software patents, is to clarify the position on patentability of computer-implemented inventions and confirm that only those inventions that involve a technical contribution can be protected by patents. We believe that this is beneficial for industry and consumers alike.

  We continue to listen to the concerns of those who oppose the granting of patents in this field, and we believe that the Government's approach offers the best balance of protection for the industry and for users of software. The directive is now before a working group of the Council of Ministers where representatives from EU member states, and the Commission, will consider the amendments made by the Parliament and in due course submit it to the Council itself for its consideration. We will await the comments of the working group and the Commission before finalising our position.

  Radioactive Waste
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the planned nuclear decommissioning authority will be given powers to renegotiate existing reprocessing contracts with British Energy when it takes over the ownership and management of the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield. [135626]

  Mr. Timms
  Legislation will be brought forward to establish the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) as soon as parliamentary time permits. We intend that the N DA will come into effect in April 2005.

  The NDA will take responsibility for those liabilities and assets currently owned and managed by BNFL at the THORP reprocessing plant. As the required legislation has not yet been introduced, it would be wrong to comment on what role the NDA might have in respect of contracts between BNFL and British Energy.

  In her statement to the House on 28 November 2002, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made clear that the Government would need to contribute significantly to British Energy's historic nuclear fuel liabilities that are managed by
  744W
  BNFL in order for the restructuring of British Energy to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry also said she will look at how these contracts are managed as part of the creation of the NDA.

  Small Business Advice
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to improve the provision of business advice to owners of small businesses in London. [136619]

  Nigel Griffiths
  During the first six months of the current financial year, Business Link for London has worked with over 31,887 businesses, this compares to the corresponding period of the previous financial year (2002–03) when 16,432 businesses were assisted, this being a 94 per cent. increase, including 23 per cent. that are Black or Minority Ethnic businesses.

  Business Link for London has an agreed Delivery Plan with the Small Business Service to provide a high quality business advice and support service to small and medium sized businesses (SM Es) in London.

  Client satisfaction levels are currently at 83.1 per cent. (Quarter 2 result 2003–04), a 5.1 per cent. raise in satisfaction levels compared to the corresponding period in the previous financial year, showing that the quality of service is improving as well as the numbers receiving the service.

  Small Loans Guarantee Fund
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to increase the level at which the Government underwrite the Small Loans Guarantee Fund. [136618]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Small Firms Loan Guarantee (SFLG) was extensively revised in April 2003 as part of the DTI's transformed business support programme. The changes, including a new guarantee level of 75 per cent for all eligible businesses and additional sector coverage including retail and catering, simplified the SFLG and widened its scope. From 1 April 2003 to 30 September 2003 take-up increased by 40 per cent over the same period last year. The DTI continues to monitor the operation of the SFLG to ensure that it remains relevant and accessible to small businesses.

  Technology Sector
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the state of the technological sector in the United Kingdom. [135511]

  Ms Hewitt
  During the course of the Innovation Review, my officials have produced a detailed economic assessment of the UK's innovation performance. This includes data and analysis on the technological performance of UK based firms.

  This assessment will be published shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Evidence (Duress)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what safeguards UK courts have in place to ensure that evidence presented before them has not been obtained under duress; and if he will make a statement. [132644]

  Paul Goggins
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer given on 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 102W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 14 August from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mr. Khalid Rahtin. [133842]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 3 September 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to him dated 2 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to facilities for the disabled. [133843]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 23 October 2003.

  Criminal Justice Boards
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many targets he has set for each local criminal justice board in 2003–04. [133485]

  Paul Goggins
  For the year 2003–04 and in the context of the Criminal Justice System Public Service Agreement, each local criminal justice board has been set the following targets:A nationally set target to increase by five per cent. the number of crimes for which an offender is brought to justice—this is also known as the 'narrowing the justice gap' target.
  The 'Narrowing the Justice Gap' target includes two further locally set sub-targets:
  To increase the number (within a range of five-15 per cent.) of offences brought to justice committed by the core group of persistent offenders.
  To reduce the proportion of ineffective trials with locally set targets contributing to a required national level of improvement of 27 per cent. in both Crown court and magistrates courts over the three-year course of the target.
  A nationally set target to improve the level of public confidence in the criminal justice system—where a national six per cent point improvement is sought over the three-year course of the target.

  Outside of the Criminal Justice System Public Service Agreement, local boards have also been set the following targets for the year 2003–04:
  A nationally set target to ensure that the average time from arrest to sentence for Persistent young offenders is halved from 142 days to 71 days or lower in all criminal justice areas.
  A number of locally set targets across the time cases take, covering both youths and adults cases from charge to completion in the magistrates courts, and separately the time
  746W
  taken to handle a case in the Crown court (`timeliness' targets)—with the proviso that any area currently performing the national average must set an improvement target.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment was made of the increase in running costs to the Criminal Records Bureau that necessitated the recent increase in fee levels; [131815]

  (2) what the changes were since 1993 in fees from the Criminal Records Bureau to local authorities for applications for posts in the education and social care sectors. [131819]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Records Bureau began operating in March 2002. Initially, the fee for both Standard and Enhanced Disclosures was £12 (with Disclosures issued free of charge to volunteers). We made it clear that the Bureau would eventually become self-financing through the fees that it charged and that the fees would be reviewed regularly. With effect from 1 July 2003, the fee for Standard Disclosures has risen to £24 and for Enhanced Disclosures to £29. A copy of a Regulatory Impact Assessment containing more detailed information has been placed in the Library.

  The Disclosure fee is determined by a combination of CRB costs and the volume of applications. The deferment of the introduction of Basic Disclosures has inevitably meant that the volumes of Disclosures issued has been less than forecast, thereby pushing up the unit cost of producing each Disclosure. In addition, the CRB has experienced some increase in costs, for example, as a result of the introduction of the paper application channel in response to customer demand. The CRB's planned expenditure in 2003–04 is £75 million (on the basis of a projected demand for 2.3 million Disclosures) as compared with an outturn of £59 million in 2002–03 (when some 1.5 million Disclosures were issued).

  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the average time taken to assess a Criminal Records Bureau application in the education and social care sectors was in the last quarter for which figures are available; [131816]

  (2) what the backlog is of Criminal Records Bureau assessments in education and social care. [131817]

  Paul Goggins
  The specific information that my hon. Friend has asked for on processing times for applicants in the education and social care sectors is not available from the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) systems. The CRB does monitor and report on the average time to deal with all Disclosure applications, but its systems do not break this information down by sector.

  Likewise, the number of applications from individual sectors that are still awaiting a disclosure is not available. At present, however, the Bureau is processing in excess of 90 per cent. of all Enhanced Disclosures in four weeks and 90 per cent. of all Standard disclosures in two weeks. These performance figures are available on the CRB website: www.crb.gov.uk
  747W
  The CRB also monitors the number of applications that have been outstanding for more than six weeks. As at 4 October 2003, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of applications over six weeks old and awaiting completion is 1,486.

  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce the time taken for Criminal Records Bureau checks to be carried out on new staff in care homes. [133272]

  Paul Goggins
  Over 90 per cent. of Standard and Enhanced Disclosures are now issued within two and four weeks respectively, exceeding current service standards. These have been set based on experience gained of this complex operation. The current targets are realistic but challenging. They will be kept under review.

  We are determined to continue to improve the efficiency of the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) and the quality of the service it provides to its customers. Measures are currently under consideration in light of the recommendations of the Independent Review Team appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary which are designed to reduce processing time.

  As the independent regulator, the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC) has the responsibility to ensure that care homes meet all their statutory obligations. It has stated clearly that where CRB clearances are not in place, and provided that the welfare of care home residents is protected, it will apply its discretion on the use of its enforcement powers on a case by case basis. The NCSC issued a press release on 22 September 2003 setting out its approach to CRB checks for care home staff. A copy is available on the NCSC's website at www.carestandards.org.uk.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received in the increase in fees for security checks charged by the Criminal Records Bureau. [133384]

  Paul Goggins
  We have received—both direct and through right hon. and hon. Members—a significant number of representations. These have chiefly concerned two issues: the size of the increases in fees, which reflect increased unit costs and the need for the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to move substantially towards a target of being self-financing by 2005–06; and the short notice of the increases which reflected the need to reduce the possibility of a surge in demand which could have had a detrimental effect on the CRB's operation.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he gives on the way the police deal with the perpetrators of domestic violence. [130990]

  Paul Goggins
  Home Office circular 19/2000 gives guidance on police handling cases of domestic violence.

  The National Centre for Policing Excellence (NCPE) is currently developing updated guidelines for police handling of domestic violence cases.
  748W
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how the funding announced in January for domestic violence projects will be allocated; [134912]

  (2) in which financial year he will allocate the money announced in January for domestic violence projects; [134913]

  (3) when funding for domestic violence projects will be transferred from his Department to crime and disorder partnerships; whether the funds for prevention domestic violence will be ring-fenced; whether prevention of domestic violence will remain a priority for the Department under the new funding arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [134960]

  Paul Goggins
  Domestic violence accounts for around 25 per cent. of violent crime and tackling it effectively remains a priority for the Home Department.

  In February this year my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced a £14 million funding package for domestic violence over a three year period. The first allocation from this funding—announced in May—was of over £2 million this year to domestic violence projects set up under the Crime Reduction Programme's Violence Against Women initiative. This included Gloucestershire's 'Co-ordinated Community Response' to domestic violence. This funding was to help these projects ensure that their services are work of local agencies and that they can secure sustainable ongoing funding for the longer term.

  Further funding over the three years will be allocated to help improve local action on domestic violence through Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs). A 'mapping exercise' of CDRP activity on domestic violence has recently been conducted to help inform these further allocations. We will be making announcements on this shortly.

  Drugs
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the trade in heroin emanating from Afghanistan since the defeat of the Taliban; and if he will make a statement on the trends in volumes of heroin arriving in the United Kingdom from Afghanistan. [135856]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement on 30 October 2003 regarding the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) survey results for the 2003 opium poppy crop in Afghanistan, Official Report, column 20WS.

  The UNODC conducts an annual survey into the level of opium poppy cultivation and production in Afghanistan. It has reported levels over the past five years as follows:

  Hectares

  Tonnes

  1999

  91,000

  4,600

  2000

  82,000

  3,300

  2001

  8,000

  185

  2002

  74,000

  3,400

  2003

  80,000

  3,600

  749W
  The UNODC figures for 2001 reflects the Taliban ban on opium cultivation. The ban did not however address the underlying causes of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and was enforced with a mix of serious violence and bribery.

  Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of opium and the UNODC has estimated that, taking into account seizures in the region, the likely amounts available for shipment out of Afghanistan in 2002 were 685 tons of opium and 212 tons of heroin and morphine. Approximately 25-35 metric tons of heroins are targeted on the UK every year and we estimate that around 95 per cent. of this originates from Afghanistan. Trends have remained fairly static.

  The UNODC poppy cultivation survey in 2003 has shown reductions in the traditional areas, which demonstrates that drug control policy has been effective where the Afghan Government have been able to exert control. Increasing security and stability in Afghanistan remains key to progress in reducing opium production. This in turn will also bring more stability to Afghanistan.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is being done to combat the international drugs trade, particularly that emanating from countries of concern; and if he will make a statement on its impact upon the United Kingdom. [136478]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The FCO's commitment to tackle international drug trafficking is set out in its Public Service Agreements. In line with the Government's 10-year drugs strategy, '1998–2008: Tackling Drugs Together to Build a Better Britain', the FCO's priority is to reduce the availability of Class A drugs in the UK. Through the Drugs and Crime Fund (£9.9 million in the financial year 2003–04), the FCO assists law enforcement and other agencies in key production and transit countries to improve their capability to disrupt the flow of Class A drugs to the UK.

  About 95 per cent. of the UK's heroin comes from Afghanistan. Afghanistan's National Drug Control Strategy, agreed earlier this year, has set the target of eliminating opium poppy by 2013. The UK is investing £70 million on sustainable measures over the next three years to support implementation of that strategy. Additional staff are being deployed to Kabul to assist in the implementation. I will be co-hosting, with President Karzai and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), an international conference in Kabul in February next year to boost further the international counter-narcotics effort in Afghanistan.

  In the financial year 2002–03 the FCO provided over £5 million in counter-narcotics related assistance to priority countries in South America and the Caribbean where illegal drugs are produced or trafficked. This assistance included funding for HMCE drug law enforcement training, provision of drug detection equipment, assessment of local law enforcement communications equipment and contributions to UNODC projects.

  Fireworks
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to halt the illegal importation of fireworks, in particular through the internet. [136958]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have been asked to reply.

  Talks are already under way between DTI and the principal Departments that deal with importation and storage issues, that is, Customs and Excise and HSE, respectively.

  The Department under the new Fireworks Act 2003 will bring in a raft of measures by the summer of 2004 and which will include a requirement on importers to provide information about their imports. The purpose of this would be to better track fireworks imports to help ensure that they are destined for legal (licensed) distribution and supply outlets.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed Public-Private Partnership regarding the Forensic Science Service will require legislation. [132404]

  Ms Blears
  The transformation of the Forensic Science Service into a Public-Private Partnership will require the revocation of the Forensic Science Service Trading Fund Order 1998.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent on purchasing and upgrading IT equipment by his Department(a) in 2003 and (b) in 2002; and what this cost per employee. [135895]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information requested is in the following table:

  Time period

  Totals (£)

  Part FY

  01 January 2002–31 March 2002

  36,464,010

  Full FY

  01 April 2002–31 March 2003

  13,017,585

  Part FY

  01 April 2003–30 September 2003

  9,127,403

  58,608,998

  Note:

  (a) The figures are expenditure incurred by the Home Department, which excludes Executive Agencies and Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs).

  (b) The figures exclude expenditure from the Department's Outsourced Managed Service Contracts for the provision of IT infrastructure services, where the assets have not transferred to the public sector.

  The Home Department is unable accurately to reflect the cost per employee of purchasing and upgrading IT equipment due to differing commercial arrangements adopted in its contracts.

  Jury Trial
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) in what circumstances and (b) for which criminal offences a jury trial may be refused to a person charged with a criminal offence. [135019]
  751W
  Paul Goggins
  There are presently no circumstances in which a person charged with a criminal offence may be refused jury trial.

  Certain offences are triable only on indictment, and must be heard by a judge and jury. Summary offences—which constitute the overwhelming majority of criminal cases—are triable only in the magistrates' courts unless they fulfil certain conditions (for example, because they are related to an indictable-only offence). Other offences are triable either way:
  by a judge and jury in the Crown Court on the direction of the magistrate or the election of the defendant, or summarily, with the consent of the defendant. There are no circumstances in which a person charged with an either-way offence can be tried summarily unless he or she has consented to summary trial. The Criminal Justice Bill currently before Parliament sets out new procedures for deciding the allocation of either-way cases, and for the sending to the Crown Court of those cases which need to go there, according to these principles.

  The Government have proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill that the prosecution should be able to apply for a trial on indictment in the Crown Court to proceed in the absence of a jury where the length and/or complexity of the trial is likely either to be so burdensome upon the jury trying it as to make it necessary in the interests of justice to conduct the trial without a jury, or to place an excessive burden on the life of a typical juror. The length or complexity (or both) must be caused by the need to address arrangements, transactions or records of a financial or commercial nature or which relate to property. The Bill also provides for a trial on indictment in the Crown Court to be conducted without a jury where there is a real and present danger of jury tampering, or to be continued without a jury where the jury has been discharged because of jury tampering. None of these provisions is restricted to particular criminal offences.

  The provisions were defeated at Lords Committee stage of the Bill. The Government have indicated their intention to reinstate them when the Bill returns to the House of Commons.

  Prison Officers
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time prison officers were employed by Her Majesty's Prison Service in the East Riding of Yorkshire on 1 September in each of the last three years. [136469]

  Paul Goggins
  There are two prisons managed by Her Majesty's Prison Service (public sector prisons) in the East Riding of Yorkshire: Everthorpe and Hull prisons. Information on full-time officers employed at these prisons in each of the last three years is shown in the table.

  Full time officers in post

  Establishment

  1 September 2003

  1 September 2002

  1 September 2001

  HMP

  Everthorpe

  124

  120

  125

  HMP Hull

  342

  307

  242

  752W
  Officers include prison officers, senior officers and principal officers.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in the prison population has been in each of the last 10 years; and what the percentage change in numbers of prison officers has been in each year in the same period. [129604]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is given in the following table. Figures are for England and Wales. Figures exclude those in privately managed prisons.

  Year (as at end March)

  Percentage change in prison population compared to previous year

  Percentage change in number of prison officers compared to previous year

  1994

  10.3

  -1.5

  1995

  4.4

  2.0

  1996

  4.4

  0.7

  1997

  10

  -5.5

  1998

  7.8

  1.7

  1999

  -2.5

  1.8

  2000

  0.4

  0.9

  2001

  -0.6

  -1.3

  2002

  6.2

  -3.0

  2003

  4.6

  2.3

  Witnesses
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to maximise the number of witnesses to crime who(a) come forward and (b) stay with a case to its conclusion. [134054]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 23 October 2003]: The Government published in July this year a national strategy to deliver improved services to victims and witnesses. It recognises that ensuring witnesses come forward and give evidence in court is essential for the effective administration of justice.

  The Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 and the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 already provide for a witness summons to be issued if the court is satisfied that the witness is likely to be able to give or produce material evidence but will not do so voluntarily. On 3 October we published a consultation paper and invited responses by 2 January 2004 to a proposal to introduce a greater element of compulsion in securing the attendance of witnesses in court.

  The Government have introduced a range of special measures to assist vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence in court, including video recording, live links, the use of intermediaries and communication aids. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides the legislative framework for these measures and a phased implementation programme began on 24 July 2002.
  753W
  Pilot projects to maximise the number of witnesses coming forward and staying with the case are currently operating on a local basis and the Government have agreed to support these financially. For example:
  The West Mercia Constabulary is engaged on a project to examine the reasons why some witnesses are reluctant to report crime and to test the effectiveness of a single point of contact (a "one stop shop") as a way of regularly updating witnesses on the progress of their cases.
  The Warwickshire Police is piloting the co-location of police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) staff dealing with witnesses and integrated information technology.
  The Metropolitan Police is piloting better co-ordination of the arrangements, both within and between criminal justice agencies, of the arrangements for dealing with witnesses.

  The CPS, the Prime Minister's Office of Public Service Reform (OPSR) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) are running a joint project with pilot sites in South Yorkshire, West Midlands, North Wales, Gwent and Essex. This project is testing a customer-focused service that tailors support more closely to individual witnesses' needs and provides multi-agency dedicated witness care units. These work with witnesses at every stage of the criminal justice process.

  The pilots directly support the criminal justice system's Public Service Agreement (PSA) target of narrowing the justice gap, reducing ineffective hearings and raising public confidence. They also complement two other key criminal justice initiatives—the CPS/ACPO Charging Programme and the Effective Trial Management Programme.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education and Business Links
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will take steps to seek to improve school leavers' understanding of the business environment. [136615]

  Mr. Miliband
  We are already taking steps for this goal. The introduction of work-related learning in September 2004 as a statutory requirement at Key Stage 4 for 14 to 16 year-olds will help improve pupils' understanding of the diversity and function of business and its contribution to national prosperity. As part of this, from 2005 all Key Stage 4 pupils will be offered the equivalent of five days' enterprise activity, which will develop enterprise capability. This will add to their existing learning opportunities through the PSHE and citizenship curriculum and activities such as work experience placements, industry days and employer mentoring schemes.

  Education Provision (Bath and North East Somerset)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools in Bath and North East Somerset which have benefited significantly from the Government's capital initiatives since 1997. [136319]
  754W
  Mr. Miliband
  All schools in Bath and North East Somerset have benefited significantly from capital investment, as we introduced Devolved formula capital for all schools in 2000–01. For a typical primary school of 250 pupils this is worth £21,900 in 2003–04, rising to £25,500 in 2005–06. A typical secondary of 1,000 pupils would receive £74,900 in 2003–04, rising to £87,250 in 2005–06.

  As the majority of capital funding is now allocated to local education authorities by formula, so that they can fund locally agreed priorities, the Department does not collect detailed information about the work carried out. This should be held locally. Overall capital investment is set to rise from £3.8 billion this year to over £5 billion in 2005–06, compared with under £700 million in 1996–97.

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate how many support staff were employed by schools in Bath and North East Somerset in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [136333]

  Mr. Miliband
  Support staff numbers in maintained schools in England by local authority are shown in table 19 of the Schools Workforce in England statistical first release (SFR) of 9 September 2003. A copy of this SFR has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000411/index. shtml

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalent teachers there were in Bath and North East Somerset in(a) 1997, (b) 2001 and (c) 2003. [136334]

  Mr. Miliband
  Full-time equivalent teacher numbers in maintained schools in England by local authority are shown in table 15 of the Schools Workforce in England statistical first release (SFR) of 9 September 2003. A copy of this SFR has been placed in the Library. The table is also available on the statistics section of the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000411/index.shtml

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what proportion of 15-yearolds in Bath and North East Somerset in 2002–03 entered for GCSE or equivalent examinations; [136340]

  (2) what proportion of 15-year-olds in Bath and North East Somerset in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 achieved (a) five or more A*-C GCSE grades and (b) one or more GCSE passes. [136341]

  Mr. Miliband
  The statistical information for Bath and North East Somerset requested in the two questions 136340 and 136341 is detailed in the table:

  Percentage of:

  Academic Year

  15-year-old Pupils who entered for 1 or more GCSE/GNVQ

  15-year-olds achieving 5 or more grades A*-C GCSE/GNVQ

  15-year-olds achieving 1 or more gradesA*-G GCSE/GNVQ

  1997

  96.4

  51.3

  95.3

  1998

  97.2

  53.2

  96.5

  2003 (provisional)

  97.1

  59.7

  95.9

  Education Provision (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary teacher vacancies there were in the East Riding of Yorkshire on 31 October of each year since 1997. [136058]

  Mr. Miliband
  Vacancy data as at October are not collected. The following table shows teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in the East Riding of Yorkshire at January of each year.

  Full-time vacancies in the East Riding of Yorkshire:

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  1

  0

  1999

  4

  0

  2000

  2

  0

  2001

  0

  6

  2002

  12

  12

  2003

  0

  5

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the average class sizes of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Haltemprice and Howden for the current academic year. [136060]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Figures on average class sizes for primary and secondary schools for this academic year are not yet available. Monitoring of all class sizes is carried out via the information collected in the Annual Schools Census in January of each year.

  As at January 2003, the average sizes of classes taught by one teacher in primary schools and secondary schools in Haltemprice and Howden were 26.8 and 22.2 respectively.

  The national figures for primary and secondary schools were 26.3 and 21.9 respectively.

  Free School Dinners
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of pupils are eligible for free school dinners in each constituency, listed in descending order. [136282]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Higher Education (Social Groups)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many students were admitted to higher education from each social group in each academic year since 1997; [133701]

  (2) how many applicants to higher education there were from each social group in each academic year since 1997. [133702]

  Alan Johnson: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 June 2003, Official Report, column 214W. which gave the latest available figures for applicants and
  756W
  accepted applicants through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses in the UK.

  Figures for 2003 entry should be available in early 2004.

  Key Stage Tests
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 14 year-olds in Bath and North East Somerset were eligible to sit Key Stage 3 tests in 2002–03. [136316]

  Mr. Miliband
  The total number of Key Stage 3 eligible pupils in 2002 and 2003 in Bath and North East Somerset were:

  2003 (Provisional)—2,219

  2002–2,189

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of children in Bath and North East Somerset in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2002–03 gained level 5 or above in their Key Stage 3 tests in (i) English and (ii) mathematics. [136317]

  Mr. Miliband
  The percentage of pupils achieving Level 5 or above at Key Stage 3 in Bath and North East Somerset in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003 in (i) English and (ii) mathematics are as follows:

  Percentage

  English

  Mathematics

  1997

  Bath and North East Somerset

  64

  67

  England

  57

  60

  2003 (provisional)

  Bath and North East Somerset

  74

  76

  England

  68

  70

  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils each year, between 1996–97 and 2002–03, gained(a) Key Stage 5 A-Cs, (b) Key Stage 2 level 4 and (c) Key Stage 3 level 5. [136339]

  Mr. Miliband
  The figures requested for all schools in England are:

  (a) GCSE/GNVQ

  Number achieving 5 or more A*-C

  Percentage achieving 5 or more A*-C

  1996–97

  264,892

  45.1

  1997–98

  266,431

  46.3

  1998–99

  278,560

  47.9

  1999–2000

  285,727

  49.2

  2000–01

  301,542

  50.0

  2001–02

  312,739

  51.6

  2002–031

  327,301

  52.6

  757W

  (b) KS2 tests

  English

  Maths

  Science

  Number achieving Level 5 or above

  Percentage achieving Level 4 or above

  Number achieving Level 5 or above

  Percentage achieving Level 4 or above

  Number achieving Level 5 or above

  Percentage achieving Level 4 or above

  1996/97

  373,392

  63

  365,998

  62

  404,629

  69

  1997/98

  394,170

  65

  356,749

  59

  420,577

  69

  1998/99

  443,445

  71

  434,044

  69

  493,235

  78

  1999/2000

  466,408

  75

  446,480

  72

  527,428

  85

  2000/01

  474,881

  75

  446,998

  71

  552,699

  87

  2001/02

  478,533

  75

  468,994

  73

  553,462

  86

  2002/031

  477,625

  75

  461,804

  73

  551,031

  87

  (b) KS3 tests

  English

  Maths

  Science

  Number achieving Level 5 or above

  Percentage achieving Level 4 or above

  Number achieving Level 5 or above

  Percentage achieving Level 4 or above

  Number achieving Level 5 or above

  Percentage achieving Level 4 or above

  1996/97

  315,582

  57

  332,482

  60

  331,834

  60

  1997/98

  357,973

  65

  331,582

  59

  310,502

  56

  1998/99

  365,702

  64

  358,423

  62

  315,192

  55

  1999/2000

  369,786

  64

  376,274

  65

  343,787

  59

  2000/01

  382,566

  65

  394,581

  66

  389,996

  66

  2001/02

  407,269

  67

  412,016

  67

  407,374

  67

  2002/031

  412,847

  68

  428,557

  70

  414,027

  68

  1 Provisional figures

  Qualifications
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the findings of research conducted for his Department by Machin, Vignoles and Galindo-Rueda on the relationship between institutional productivity and skills attainments at various levels. [136457]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The research by Machin, Vignoles and Galindo-Rueda showed strong productivity effects from academic level 4+ qualifications and positive productivity effects from level 2 academic qualifications, although these are not quite as robust as the academic level 4 results. At both of these levels employers receive a productivity benefit over and above the wage increase employees enjoyed as a result of holding these qualifications.

  No systematic impact on productivity from vocational qualifications was found, regardless of level though the methodology used meant that the impact of vocational qualifications would be more difficult to detect than that of academic qualifications. The authors themselves admit that this finding contradicts previous research, such as that by McIntosh1, which shows that there are wage returns to the individual for vocational qualifications. Further work is being carried out to gain a firmer evidence base in this area.

  The analysis also showed that workers with the poorest basic skills are more likely to be found out of work.

  1 McIntosh, S. Further Analysis of the Further Returns to Academic and Vocational Qualifications. DfES 2002 (RR370)

  Schools (Ethnic Mix)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to promote a greater ethnic mix in schools in multi-ethnic areas; and if he will make a statement. [136074]
  758W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Code of Practice on School Admissions was revised in January 2003 and makes it clear that all admission authorities have a duty to promote racial equality and should assess the impact of their admissions policies on ethnic minority pupils and parents.

  Guidance issued earlier this year to School Organisation Committees asks them to consider the potential contribution to community cohesion when considering proposals for a new school. Schools can promote community cohesion by inclusive admission arrangements or by working with other local schools to bring children of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds together to promote understanding between different groups in our society.

  Student Drop-out
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students dropped out from undergraduate degree courses in each of the past five years, broken down by the year of their course in which the drop-out occurred. [131728]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information on the non-continuation of students beyond the first year in each university, and the projected course non-completion rate in each university is contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK" published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, a copy of which is available from the House library. The latest edition, published in December 2002, gives figures for students starting full-time degree courses in the United Kingdom in 1999/00. No data are held covering those students who drop out of their course after two or three years.
  759W
  The latest figures are given below. Corresponding data for 2000/01 will be published later in the autumn.

  Completion rates of HE students in UK HE institutions

  Full-time first degree entrants

  Students starting courses in academic year:

  Percentage not continuing to 2nd year

  Percentage who failed to complete the course

  1996/97

  10

  18

  1997/98

  9

  17

  1998/99

  10

  17

  1999/2000

  10

  17

  Nationally, the non-completion rate has remained broadly the same at 17–18 per cent. since 1991–92, a period of considerable expansion of student numbers.

  Figures published in 2003 by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show that the UK has one of the lowest non-completion rates among OECD countries.

  Student Performance Variations
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the "Education at a Glance" 2003: OECD Indicators finding that in the United Kingdom 82 per cent. of the variation in student performance lies within schools. [131954]

  Alan Johnson
  The OECD's "Education at a Glance" for 2003 reports the variation in reading literacy between schools in the UK to be 22.4 per cent. of the average variation in student performance across all OECD countries, and the corresponding variation in reading literacy within UK schools to be 82.3 per cent. Taken together, these variances imply that 78.6 per cent. of the total UK variance lay within schools, and 21.4 per cent. between.

  A majority of the countries that participated in PISA 2000 showed a greater variation in performance within schools than between schools. Compared with the UK, within-school variation was higher in Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and the USA. The UK had a similar level of within-school variation to Finland, Ireland and Canada. Countries that have more selection by ability tend to show more variation between schools and less variation within them, compared to countries with less selection.

  An important contributor to the variation in reading literacy performance in schools is socio-economic background. We aim through our proposals for 14 to

  Full-time equivalent regular1 qualified primary school teachers

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  City of London

  10

  20

  20

  20

  10

  10

  20

  Camden

  590

  560

  550

  580

  520

  530

  580

  Greenwich

  1,020

  990

  990

  1,010

  970

  930

  930

  Hackney

  840

  850

  870

  870

  840

  780

  790

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  460

  410

  410

  440

  430

  450

  420

  Islington

  800

  800

  740

  750

  680

  750

  700

  Kensington and Chelsea

  360

  350

  350

  330

  340

  340

  340

  Lambeth

  1,040

  1,040

  1,010

  950

  960

  990

  940

  Lewisham

  1,010

  1,010

  970

  1,020

  1,030

  1,010

  1,050

  Southwark

  1,000

  1,030

  1,050

  1,040

  1,080

  1,060

  1,060

  Tower Hamlets

  1,150

  1,080

  1,140

  1,100

  1,040

  990

  940

  Wandsworth

  870

  850

  890

  870

  860

  860

  840

  760W
  19-year-olds1 to transform the learning experience for young people, so that by the age of 16 they are committed to continued learning, whether in school, college or the workplace, whatever their home background.

  Policies aimed at levelling up pupil attainment include:
  the school work force reform programme, the central purpose of which is to give teachers more time to focus on activities that really make a difference—includingthe planning, preparation and assessment that enable teaching and learning to be tailored to individual pupil needs;
  work to strengthen school leadership such as the National Professional Qualification for Headship, now run by the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) which also runs programmes to improve the performance of middle managers such as year heads;
  tracking pupil achievement more closely; and
  supporting parents and encouraging them to participate in their children's learning, in line with research evidence showing (i) that parental interest in their child's education between the ages of 11 and 16 has a more powerful effect on children's attainment than social class, size of family and level of parental education; and (ii) that good at-home parenting has a significant impact on children's education throughout the years of schooling.

  The creation of the Children and Families Directorate and the recent publication of the Green Paper "Every Child Matters" reaffirm the Department's commitment to making life better for children and their families.

  114–19: opportunity and excellence.

  Teacher Numbers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many qualified teachers were working in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each borough of London for each year since 1997. [135150]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following tables show full-time equivalent regular qualified teachers in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in each London authority in January of each year since 1997. During this period there was a decrease of 8,200 in the number of pupils in primary schools in London and an increase of 42,800 in secondary school pupil numbers. The tables exclude regular teachers without Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), for example, those on employment based routes leading to QTS and those who have overseas teaching qualifications. There were 5,400 full-time equivalent regular teachers without QTS in service in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in London in January 2003.
  761W

  Full-time equivalent regular1 qualified primary school teachers

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Westminster

  560

  520

  530

  530

  520

  520

  530

  Barking and Dagenham

  750

  720

  730

  730

  740

  720

  710

  Barnet

  1,270

  1,210

  1,230

  1,220

  1,190

  1,200

  1,190

  Bexley

  890

  870

  900

  880

  910

  910

  850

  Brent

  1,110

  1,100

  1,090

  1,030

  1,020

  1,010

  1,020

  Bromley

  970

  980

  1,000

  980

  1,090

  1,100

  1,080

  Croydon

  1,420

  1,400

  1,380

  1,530

  1,550

  1,370

  1,370

  Ealing

  1,210

  1,200

  1,200

  1,170

  1,140

  1,120

  1,030

  Enfield

  1,110

  1,130

  1,120

  1,260

  1,150

  1,230

  1,120

  Haringey

  1,020

  1,010

  1,000

  990

  970

  950

  940

  Harrow

  960

  910

  890

  800

  880

  840

  830

  Havering

  900

  890

  900

  920

  890

  890

  870

  Hillingdon

  930

  930

  920

  970

  990

  960

  920

  Hounslow

  910

  880

  890

  870

  850

  830

  750

  Kingston upon Thames

  490

  480

  480

  490

  490

  490

  500

  Merton

  690

  670

  680

  640

  670

  650

  600

  Newham

  1,110

  1,110

  1,160

  1,210

  1,210

  1,210

  1,210

  Redbridge

  910

  920

  950

  980

  970

  940

  930

  Richmond upon Thames

  550

  550

  550

  540

  560

  520

  560

  Sutton

  580

  590

  600

  600

  620

  610

  650

  Waltham Forest

  990

  1,030

  1,040

  950

  890

  910

  780

  London

  28470

  28,070

  28,230

  28,280

  28,050

  27,690

  27,040

  Full-time equivalent regular1 qualified primary school teachers

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  770

  770

  740

  630

  760

  780

  650

  Greenwich

  870

  850

  860

  870

  890

  940

  930

  Hackney

  490

  510

  530

  520

  480

  500

  510

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  360

  410

  410

  450

  440

  420

  390

  Islington

  520

  500

  490

  510

  510

  500

  490

  Kensington and Chelsea

  250

  250

  250

  240

  250

  240

  240

  Lambeth

  480

  510

  490

  510

  490

  470

  470

  Lewisham

  740

  740

  730

  740

  800

  770

  780

  Southwark

  590

  620

  620

  630

  630

  680

  620

  Tower Hamlets

  900

  890

  910

  890

  880

  860

  960

  Wandsworth

  640

  640

  640

  630

  650

  660

  630

  Westminster

  530

  540

  550

  560

  570

  570

  550

  Barking and Dagenham

  660

  640

  660

  670

  660

  680

  690

  Barnet

  1,410

  1,360

  1,370

  1,380

  1,390

  1,370

  1,390

  Bexley

  900

  920

  950

  940

  950

  1,050

  1,010

  Brent

  930

  950

  940

  940

  910

  920

  1,050

  Bromley

  1,170

  1,190

  1,200

  1,200

  1,290

  1,320

  1,270

  Croydon

  1,000

  1,030

  1,030

  1,200

  1,120

  1,080

  1,050

  Ealing

  890

  870

  900

  920

  880

  890

  970

  Enfield

  1,230

  1,280

  1,320

  1,270

  1,280

  1,180

  1,240

  Haringey

  740

  720

  730

  740

  750

  720

  710

  Harrow

  560

  550

  560

  530

  550

  540

  550

  Havering

  900

  900

  910

  880

  940

  930

  950

  Hillingdon

  970

  990

  960

  1,010

  1,020

  1,000

  980

  Hounslow

  990

  960

  980

  970

  980

  950

  920

  Kingston upon Thames

  520

  520

  520

  510

  520

  510

  570

  Merton

  460

  460

  450

  440

  450

  440

  490

  Newham

  1,000

  1,020

  1,040

  1,050

  1,080

  1,080

  1,080

  Redbridge

  1,030

  1,040

  1,070

  1,040

  1,160

  1,140

  1,190

  Richmond upon Thames

  480

  480

  470

  440

  440

  490

  430

  Sutton

  730

  750

  770

  810

  830

  860

  940

  Waltham Forest

  810

  820

  840

  890

  820

  800

  770

  London

  24,540

  24,690

  24,880

  25,000

  25,350

  25,320

  25,490

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 10.

  762W

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to change the income assessments for eligibility for full or partial remission of tuition fees. [136541]

  Alan Johnson
  We intend to keep the income thresholds at which students are eligible for full and partial fee remission under review. In addition, from 2004, the poorest 30 per cent. of students—those whose parental income is below £15,200—will receive a full HE grant of £1,000. From 2006–07, Higher Education Institutions will need to offer additional bursaries to students, as part of the access agreements they will draw up in return for the ability to charge variable fees of up to £3,000.

  Undergraduate Courses
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what proportion of undergraduates failed to complete a course at a higher education institution, broken down by(a) institution and (b) course title, in each year since 1997. [133691]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 215W, which gave the latest available information on non-completion rates contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education", published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

  The next edition, covering students starting courses in 2000–01, is scheduled for publication later in the autumn.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of(a) the UK and (b) Wales she estimates will be able to receive digital TV transmissions by January 2004. [135768]

  Estelle Morris
  The ITC and BBC advise that around 73.1 per cent. of UK households and around 56 per cent. of households situated in Wales are now able to receive the Freeview digital terrestrial television (DTT) service. We do not anticipate further significant coverage increases from the current transmitter sites at this stage. Work on developing a detailed plan for increased DTT coverage is on-going under the Digital Television Action Plan, a copy of which is available at www.digitaltelevision.gov.uk. Digital television services are also available to around 98 per cent. of UK households on digital satellite and to around 25 per cent. of households on digital cable.

  Foreign Visitors (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many foreign visitors she estimates visited Romford in 2002–03. [136474]

  Mr. Caborn
  The International Passenger Survey records visits to Romford as part of the total for London; figures on the number of visits by foreign residents specifically to Romford are not collected.

  National Lottery
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total amount given in lottery grants was for each constituency in the past 10 years; and what the total amount of lottery money raised in each constituency was in the past 10 years, listed in descending order according to the amount spent in each constituency. [136964]

  Estelle Morris
  I am arranging for the information detailing the total amount given in lottery grants in each constituency to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Information about National Lottery ticket sales is not broken down by constituency, but the National Lottery Commission is able to provide information about sales broken down by postcode area. I shall write to my hon. Friend with it as soon as possible, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Ticket sales do not directly link to the overall amount of money raised by the lottery. Payments not in respect of ticket sales form a part of lottery income and this money cannot be attributed to any specific area.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total amount of Lottery grants given to(a) the richest 100 wards in theUK and (b) the poorest 100 wards in the UK in the past 10 years was, in descending order. [136965]

  Estelle Morris
  Based on information provided by the Lottery distributors for the Department's Lottery awards database, and using the most recent Index of Multiple Deprivation, the amounts awarded to the most and least deprived wards are in the tables. Since 2000, due to boundary changes, a number of wards have ceased to exist and so are not shown in the tables.

  The lists relate only to England as no comparable UK list is available.

  Most deprived electoral wards

  Total (£)

  Central-Manchester

  103,026,295

  Everton-Liverpool

  69,302,407

  West City-Newcastle upon Tyne

  52,392,867

  Ardwick-Manchester

  42,135,721

  Spitalfields and Banglatown-Tower Hamlets

  31,244,580

  Myton-Kingston upon Hull, City of

  24,751,077

  Blackwall and Cubitt Town-Tower Hamlets

  20,063,992

  Burngreave-Sheffield

  18,060,393

  Central-Bolton

  16,052,010

  Birkenhead-Wirral

  12,749,057

  Sparkbrook-Birmingham

  10,437,974

  Central-Peterborough

  10,274,418

  Beswick and Clayton-Manchester

  9,869,176

  Aston-Birmingham

  9,734,515

  Portrack and Tilery-Stockton-on-Tees

  9,172,229

  Weavers-Tower Hamlets

  9,139,375

  St. Mary's-Liverpool

  7,822,697

  St. Hilda's-Middlesbrough

  6,904,911

  South Bank-Redcar and Cleveland

  6,743,538

  Granby-Liverpool

  6,564,303

  Linacre-Sefton

  6,192,862

  Vauxhall-Liverpool

  5,550,313

  Byker-Newcastle upon Tyne

  4,853,126

  Central and Falinge-Rochdale

  4,750,701

  Elswick-Newcastle upon Tyne

  4,594,991

  Beckton-Newham

  4,464,004

  Orchard Park and Greenwood-Kingston upon Hull, City of

  4,172,593

  Moss Side-Manchester

  3,805,794

  Manvers-Nottingham

  3,701,533

  765W

  Most deprived electoral wards

  Total (£)

  North Braunstone-Leicester

  3,198,980

  Beckfield-Middlesbrough

  3,117,328

  Smallbridge and Wardleworth-Rochdale

  2,889,038

  Clubmoor-Liverpool

  2,808,023

  Pier-Thanet

  2,688,012

  Nelson-Great Yarmouth

  2,687,800

  Kensington-Liverpool

  2,552,052

  Coldhurst-Oldham

  2,451,232

  Daneshouse with Stoneyholme-Burnley

  2,066,213

  Little Norton-Bradford

  1,954,084

  Kirkby Central-Knowsley

  1,951,391

  Regent-Great Yarmouth

  1,853,980

  Whitefield-Pendle

  1,778,409

  Walker-Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,741,950

  Dearne Thurnscoe-Barnsley

  1,731,179

  Bradford-Manchester

  1,718,580

  Park-Sheffield

  1,683,975

  Queensbridge-Hackney

  1,594,743

  East India and Lansbury-Tower Hamlets

  1,558,065

  Manor-Sheffield

  1,503,839

  Breckfield-Liverpool

  1,490,809

  Smithdown-Liverpool

  1,470,202

  Soho and Victoria-Sandwell

  1,189,662

  Werneth-Oldham

  1,170,332

  Netherley-Liverpool

  1,029,582

  Tranmere-Wirral

  955,339

  Cherryfield-Knowsley

  951,926

  Alexandra-Oldham

  935,289

  Strelley-Nottingham

  879,832

  Middleton West-Rochdale

  876,537

  Woodhouse Park-Manchester

  853,951

  Bidston-Wirral

  851,456

  Melrose-Liverpool

  793,951

  Limehousc-Tower Hamlets

  792,624

  Gorton South-Manchester

  745,674

  Grangetown-Redcar and Cleveland

  718,173

  Owton-Hartlepool

  714,291

  Speke-Liverpool

  706,523

  Dyke House-Hartlepool

  705,506

  Central-Hyndburn

  646,921

  Chirton-North Tyneside

  635,459

  Northwood-Knowsley

  633,526

  Benchill-Manchester

  563,921

  Harpurhey-Manchester

  550,234

  Southwick-Sunderland

  488,700

  Newton Heath-Manchester

  428,392

  Monkchester-Newcastle upon Tyne

  413,430

  Dovecot-Liverpool

  392,140

  Pirrie-Liverpool

  373,207

  Southey Green-Sheffield

  354,357

  Thorntree-Middlesbrough

  336,011

  Bradford Moor-Bradford

  328,145

  Blakenall-Walsall

  311,834

  Eden Hill-Easington

  257,828

  Cantril Farm-Knowsley

  248,438

  Audley-Blackburn with Darwen

  207,508

  Shadsworth-Blackburn with Darwen

  201,900

  Deneside-Easington

  198,179

  Mirehouse-Copeland

  194,353

  Park End-Middlesbrough

  192,450

  Tower Hill-Knowsley

  181,916

  Pallister-Middlesbrough

  180,499

  Princess-Knowsley

  167,034

  Sandwith-Copeland

  158,607

  Longview-Knowsley

  56,349

  Higher Croft-Blackburn with Darwen

  34,246

  Beechwood-Middlesbrough

  30,220

  Shirebrook North-West-Bolsover

  7,409

  Least deprived electoral wards

  Total (£)

  Beaconsfield South-South Bucks

  6,012,382

  Eton North and South-Windsor and Maidenhead

  3,410,463

  Boxley-Maidstone

  2,333,634

  St. Paul-Winchester

  2,220,065

  Merrow and Burpham-Guildford

  2,197,413

  Verulam-St. Albans

  1,987,714

  Lightwater-Surrey Heath

  1,615,756

  766W

  Least deprived electoral wards

  Total (£)

  Tudor-Kingston upon Thames

  1,419,732

  Harpenden West-St. Albans

  1,356,024

  St. Alphege-Solihull

  1,308,273

  Trafalgar-Horsham

  992,090

  Parkside-Surrey Heath

  970,678

  Gerrards Cross North-South Bucks

  902,829

  Prestwood and Heath End-Chiltern

  847,733

  Chalfont St. Peter Central-Chiltern

  724,880

  Over-South Cambridgeshire

  630,906

  Martlesham-Suffolk Coastal

  629,507

  Thames-Reading

  571,921

  Christchurch-Guildford

  527,030

  Wollaston-Wellingborough

  443,823

  Ashtead Village-Mole Valley

  425,023

  Pangbourne-West Berkshire

  424,696

  Bourne End-cum-Hedsor-Wycombe

  394,412

  Haywards Heath-Heath-Mid Sussex

  365,079

  Sonning Common-South Oxfordshire

  323,587

  West Byfleet-Woking

  311,000

  Coronation-Wokingham

  310,845

  Hiltingbury East-Eastleigh

  307,424

  Chorleywood West-Three Rivers

  284,509

  Chesham Bois and Weedon Hill-Chiltern

  269,425

  Fetcham East-Mole Valley

  263,578

  Deeping St. James-South Kesteven

  251,764

  Windlesham-Surrey Heath

  237,391

  Shenfield-Brentwood

  233,902

  Shrivenham-Vale of White Horse

  232,677

  Abbey-Warwick

  226,804

  Chevening-Sevenoaks

  216,300

  Tarporley and Oulton-Vale Royal

  199,212

  Red hatch-Wokingham

  192,446

  Fulshaw-Macclesfield

  183,162

  Broadstone-Poole

  176,072

  Chalfont St. Giles-Chiltern

  172,527

  Burgess Hill-Chanctonbury-Mid Sussex

  172,480

  Comberton-South Cambridgeshire

  171,516

  Lindfield Urban-Mid Sussex

  170,008

  Haywards Heath Harlands-Mid Sussex

  158,764

  College—Epsom and Ewell

  149,743

  Petts Wood and Knoll-Bromley

  148,298

  Hempstead and Wigmore-Medway

  145,029

  Weybridge South—Elmbridge

  143,541

  Marlow North-Wycombe

  132,986

  Hazlemere Central-Wycombe

  130,275

  Croxley Green-Three Rivers

  122,516

  Little Sandhurst-Bracknell Forest

  101,000

  Aldenham East-Hertsmere

  97,102

  Evendons-Wokingham

  93,544

  Harpenden South-St. Albans

  92,103

  Emmbrook-Wokingham

  90,028

  Bisley-Stroud

  89,576

  Weston Green-Elmbridge

  78,000

  Stapleford-South Cambridgeshire

  62,786

  Little Hungerford-Wokingham

  53,627

  Frimley Green-Surrey Heath

  46,660

  FetchamWest—Mole Valley

  45,534

  Pannal—Harrogate

  35,681

  Hiltingbury West-Eastleigh

  30,797

  Hazlemere West-Wycombe

  30,357

  Selsdon and Ballards-Croydon

  27,447

  South Woodham-Collingwood East and West-Chelmsford

  23,405

  Fleet Pondtail-Hart

  21,904

  Hook-Hart

  18,857

  Kempshott-Basingstoke and Deane

  18,651

  Pyrford-Woking

  18,384

  Heatherside-Surrey Heath

  17,995

  Oxshott and Stoke D'Abernon-Elmbridge

  17,207

  Walton South-Elmbridge

  16,248

  Harpenden East-St. Albans

  12,649

  Croxley Green South-Three Rivers

  11,515

  Chineham-Basingstoke and Deane

  10,000

  Riverhead-Sevenoaks

  9,000

  Moor Park and Eastbury-Three Rivers

  8,995

  Holmes Chapel-Congleton

  8,735

  Fleet Courtmoor-Hart

  7,926

  Sonning-Wokingham

  7,230

  Nork-Reigate and Banstead

  5,614

  Marlow Bottom-Wycombe

  4,100

  HinchleyWood-Elmbridge

  1,612

  Burgess Hill-Franklands-Mid Sussex

  1,120

  New Community Development Fund
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the New Community Development Fund sports budget will be allocated to(a) tennis, netball, hockey and swimming and (b) other women's and girls' sporting activities. [136794]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the Community Club Development Programme, a total of £60 million has been made available over 2003–06 for the development of facilities at community sports clubs. Of that total, tennis will receive £9.4 million as one of four major participation sports (the others being football, rugby and cricket). Netball, hockey and swimming will receive £1.66 million each.

  The Government have not made these funds available on the assumption that these, or other, sports are exclusively for women or girls. Each of the 16 sports included in the programme will make funds available for the encouragement of women's and girls' participation, against their own development plans.

  Obesity
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is taking to tackle obesity through sport. [136649]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government is aware that obesity levels are rising, especially among young people. Raising levels of community participation is key to tackling this. The Government is addressing this by investing in high-quality local sport and activity resources, which are available to all. The New Opportunities Fund (NOF) and Space for Sport and the Arts are putting over £581 million into new PE and school sport facilities in England and Wales, and putting over £400 million into local sports facilities, healthy living centres and activity centres for young people. In addition, we are supporting the vital network of 110,000 amateur sports clubs with a new £60 million capital investment, tax and charity breaks, and mandatory rate relief. £28 million is also being invested by my Department in the recruitment, training and deployment of sports coaches across the UK.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on coordination between regional development agencies and her Department on sport. [136648]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under its modernisation and restructuring programme, Sport England is devolving greater responsibility for funding decisions on community sports projects to its regional offices. New Regional Sports Boards, constituted as sub-committees of Sport England, will prepare Regional Sports Strategies in consultation with all relevant regional interests, including regional development agencies. The strategies will inform funding decisions in the regions.

  The Department and Sport England also work directly with individual RDAs on specific issues, such as the long-term future of the British Grand Prix at Silverstone in which the East Midlands Development Agency is representing the Government in discussions
  768W
  with key players. The Department's Olympic Games Unit is also working very closely with the London Development Agency (LDA) in support of the 2012 Olympic Bid, and earlier this year met with representatives of all nine RDAs to discuss the implications across the country of staging the Games. The Department and Sport England continue to work closely with the LDA on monitoring the construction of the new National Stadium at Wembley.

  Summer Activities (Young People)
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's funded programme of summer activities for young people. [136650]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with other Government Departments and agencies to deliver the Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) programme during a 11 school holidays, including half-term breaks. The programme builds on the success of last year's Splash Extra and Summer Plus schemes and aims to reduce youth offending, encourage children and young people to return to education or training and build community cohesion.

  PAYP engages young people through arts, sports and educational activities. It is targeted at those young people most at risk of offending or truancy and areas where community cohesion or street crime is identified as being a particular problem.

  It will run for an initial period of three years and is fi4nded by the Department for Education and Skills, the Home Office and by the National Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund. The Youth Justice Board is making an in-kind contribution. The funds available for the first year total £25 million and funding for years 2 and 3, to be confirmed shortly, will remain at least at this level. The programme is being delivered through the Government Offices for the Regions who in turn appoint sub-regional Lead Delivery Agents to plan provision according to local need. The most at risk young people receive key worker support to ensure continuity between school holiday periods.

  The programme ran in four locations in the Leeds North West constituency and provided a total number of 549 places on 126 activities.

  A full evaluation of the effectiveness of the year-round holiday provision is under way and key findings are expected to be available around May 2004. In the meantime initial feedback from the summer and half term programmes—which is still being collated—suggests a high level of take-up of the schemes over these periods and promising associated benefits.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all personnel have received their pay on time during the last six months; what irregularities have been reported; and if he will make a statement. [136577]
  769W
  Mr. Caplin
  51 RAF trainees experienced a delay in receiving their monthly salary for October 2003. This was caused by an oversight in creating an officer's computer pay record for each of the personnel affected These records have now been created, and the personne affected paid.

  No other delays affecting significant numbers have been reported during the last six months, and over 99.9 per cent. of electronic monthly payments to personnel have been made on time. Inevitably, however, given the size of our armed forces, isolated cases of delays due to administrative errors can occur.

  Arms Fairs
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to support arms fairs. [136295]

  Mr. Ingram
  The support given by the Ministry of Defence to defence exhibitions at home and oversea s will continue in accordance with the Government s policy of assisting the United Kingdom defence industry in its aim to achieve legitimate exports.

  Campaign Medals
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Servicemen and women who served in Afghanistan in 2001–02 be given their campaign medals. [136955]

  Mr. Caplin
  Service in Afghanistan on Operation Veritas from 11 September 2001 to a date to be announced has been recognised by the institution of the Operational Service Medal. Command Paper Cm 593"), which contains the detailed qualifying criteria, was laid before Parliament on 8 September 2003 and a Defence Council Instruction was subsequently published on 31 October 2003. The issue of medals will commence upon receipt of applications from Service personnel.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Servicemen and women who served in Operation Telic in Iraq in 2003 will be given their campaign medals. [136956]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 23 October 2003,Official Report, column 654W, to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Gerald Howarth). I can add that the detailed eligibility criteria have since been completed by the Department and passed to the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals for their approval. The work is progressing well.

  Deepcut Barracks Inquiry
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department has taken to implement each of the recommendations contained in Surrey Police's inquiry into the deaths at Deepcut Barracks; what the timeframe for implementation is; and if he will make a statement. [135937]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Surrey Police have yet to produce their fifth and final report and the Ministry of Defence is therefore not aware of the detailed recommendations it will contain. However, the Army has worked closely with Surrey Police to develop a learning account to 770W
  ensure that the key lessons arising from these tragic deaths are identified and swiftly acted upon. This learning account contains 28 recommendations. Of these recommendations, 25 have been implemented and the remaining three are well in hand.

  Fissile Material
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much fissile material has been produced in each year from 1979 to date; and how much is presently held, broken down into material classified as(a) high level, (b) intermediate level and (c) low level material. [135078]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1979, deliveries of fissile material, under Ministry of Defence production contracts, have been as follows (rounded to the nearest kilogram):

  Kilogram

  1989–90

  181

  1990–91

  271

  1991–92

  179

  1992–93

  268

  1993–94

  181

  1994–95

  171

  1995–96

  21

  Fissile material is not classified in the categories requested, which are used to describe levels of radioactive waste. I am therefore unable to provide the information in the form requested.

  HMS Trafalgar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected commissioning date is of HMS Trafalgar; where the nuclear reactor Power Range Tests will be carried out prior to commissioning; and if he will make a statement. [136519]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Trafalgar is currently undergoing a Revalidation Assisted Maintenance Period at Devonport. She has not been de-commissioned, and this work will not involve re-fuelling the reactor. There is therefore no requirement for Power Range Testing. HMS Trafalgar is expected to return to service early 2004.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) United Kingdom troops and (b) troops from the Territorial Army are serving in Iraq. [134435]

  Mr. Ingram
  We currently have around 11,000 United Kingdom service personnel serving in Iraq, of which approximately 1,800 are members of the Territorial Army.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many packets have been sent to armed forces personnel stationed in the Gulf free of charge since the scheme was launched. [136398]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not possible to give the precise number of packets sent to members of Her Majesty's forces and entitled civilians on Operation Telic since the service was instituted on 17 April 2003, as numbers are calculated by sampling rather than counting of
  771W
  individual items. However, as at Friday 31 October 2003, we calculate that some 570,000 free packets have been sent.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 1 September,Official Report, column 905W, on Iraq, what the outcome was of the investigation; and if he will place a copy of the relevant communications log in the Library. [131785]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence is determined to do all we can to establish the facts, and to bring to account those responsible for the deaths of the six Royal Military Police soldiers killed so tragically in Iraq on 24 June. It would not be appropriate to comment while the SIB investigation is still ongoing and we cannot put a timeframe on how long the investigation might take. Once it has been completed a full report will be given to the families concerned. The next of kin are being kept informed of the investigation's progress. I will make public as many of its findings as possible, subject to operational and other security constraints.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often he receives briefings from the Commander of British Forces in Iraq. [132132]

  Mr. Hoon
  I receive regular briefings on operations in Iraq, which include input from the Commander of British Forces in Iraq. These are supplemented with additional briefings where necessary.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of deaths of(a) Iraqi civilians and (b) Iraqi military personnel (i) during the recent conflict and (ii) since the formal cessation of hostilities. [133234]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 55W, to the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 7W.

  Kazakhstan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions(a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) other representatives of the Government have had with representatives of the Government of Kazakhstan concerning the (i) storage, (ii) disposal and (iii) security of ex-Soviet (A) biological and (B) chemical weapons located in Kazakhstan; and if he will make a statement. [136308]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are not aware of any discussions with the Government of Kazakhstan concerning the storage, disposal, or security of possible ex-Soviet biological and chemical weapons located in Kazakhstan.

  Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), a state is obliged to declare any chemical weapons (CW) on their territory. Kazakhstan is a state party to the CWC and has not declared any CW being located in Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan is not a state party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there was a low-flying field training exercise in October in the Severn Valley area. [136014]

  Mr. Caplin
  There were no major low-flying training exercises in the Severn Valley area during October. Any military aircraft sighted will probably have been undertaking routine military low-flying training.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the first statutory inspection of the Ministry of Defence Police by Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabularies, under the Police Reform Act 2002, will take place; and if he will make a statement. [136392]

  Mr. Caplin
  The first statutory inspection of the Ministry of Defence Police by her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, under the Police Reform Act 2002, was conducted between June and October 2003. In common with other Home Department police forces, MDP underwent a baseline assessment of its core business areas. The draft assessment is expected in January 2004 and will be followed by a rolling programme of follow-up visits.

  North Site (Malvern)
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his plans are for the future of North Site, Malvern. [136957]

  Mr. Caplin
  The site was handed to Defence Estates on 27 March this year and is being prepared for disposal on the open market.

  Nuclear Warfare
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence w hen the United Kingdom(a) withdrew the last nuclear free-fall bomb, (b) reduced the operationally available stockpile of nuclear warheads to below 200, (c) reduced the number of warheads deployed on Trident submarines to 48 warheads and (d) placed fissile material no longer required for defence purposes under international safeguards. [135913]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom withdrew the last nuclear free-fall bomb in March 1998. We have made adjustments to ensure the operationally available stockpile of nuclear warheads has been below 200 since that policy was announced as part of the Strategic Defence Review in July 1998. We reduced the number of warheads deployed on Trident submarines to 48 warheads by December 1998. Since 1990, we have placed fissile material no longer required for defence purposes under international safeguards, with significant volumes of material being brought into safeguards in July and August 1998.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further actions his Department will pursue to implement the disarmament measures identified at the end of the 2000 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. [135914]
  773W
  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 5 November 2003,Official Report, column 662W, to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).

  Purchasing Strategy
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to take into consideration(a) the social issues involving the employment of disabled people, (b) strategic issues regarding product development and (c) response times to crises, when determining his Department's purchasing strategy; and if he will make a statement. [135763]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision on the appropriate purchasing strategy for any procurement has to take into account a wide range of factors, underpinned by the need to provide the armed forces with the equipment they require at best value for money for the taxpayer. As set out in the Government's Defence industrial Policy (published in October 2002), these factors include, amongst others, security of supply and the ability to respond in times of crises, and the implications for key technologies and industrial capabilities.

  Most contracts for the procurement of goods and services include an express condition of contract which encourages our prime contractors to give consideration to the placing of sub-contract work with Supported Employment Enterprises.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors underlay the decision to change the purchasing strategy of chemical and biological warfare protection suits by changing the tender from UK only to international sourcing; and if he will make a statement. [135764]

  Mr. Ingram
  There has been no change in the Ministry of Defence's purchasing strategy for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) warfare protection suits with regard to the tendering process. These items are classed as warlike stores and as such are exempt from the requirement to advertise in the European Journal (OJEC). The Department advertises its requirements for these items in the MOD Contracts Bulletin. Any company may respond and the Department will run a competition to ensure that its requirements are met in the most cost-effective way.

  The procurement of CBRN suits is included in the Defence Logistic Organisation's procurement reform strategy, for Supplier Base Optimisation, which is 51 ill under review.

  Regiments
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the(a) Queen's Lancashire Regiment and (b) King's Regiment. [135810]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to disband the Queen's Lancashire Regiment or the King's Regiment.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  September Sittings
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Leader of the House what representations he has received about the September sitting of the House. [136500]

  Mr. Hain
  A number of Members have raised with me their view on September sittings—both for and against—by raising it in the Chamber, at business questions and questions to the Leader of the House, and in private discussion. I have had one letter from a hon. Member on the subject, in favour of the change. I have received representations from two outside organisations on the dates of the September sittings.

  In my view, the September sitting was successful in conducting important business and in allowing the Prime Minister and other Members of the Cabinet to be questioned and challenged on key issues such as Iraq for which there might otherwise have been demands for a recall of the House.

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Leader of the House what recent representations he has received about the sitting hours of the House. [136499]

  Mr. Hain
  A number of Members have raised with me their view on the sitting hours—both for and against the change—by raising it in the Chamber, at business questions and questions to the Leader of the House, by letter and in private discussion; and I am aware of early-day motions on the subject. I have had no representations from outside Parliament in favour of the House reverting to its former hours. The House has agreed the change for the remainder of this Parliament and will need to review the matter before then.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Call Centres
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether his Department plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom. [132111]

  Mr. Pearson
  Northern Ireland Departments and the NIO have no plans to outsource call centre work to premises outside the United Kingdom.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the current terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland. [135395]

  Jane Kennedy
  Recent activity by dissident republicans and loyalists shows that they still pose a threat to the peace process. However, the security forces continue to disrupt, intercept or thwart their operations through good intelligence-led policing and covert operations.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Bailiffs
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many complaints have been made in each year since 1997 concerning the conduct of bailiffs; how many complaints have been investigated; how many complaints have resulted in a prosecution; how many convictions there were concerning the conduct of bailiffs; and if he will publish a list of banned bailiffs. [136800]

  Mr. Leslie
  I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Divorced Parents
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2003,Official Report, column 631W, on divorced parents, if he will commission research on the impact upon children of one divorced parent being given leave to remove their children from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [136099]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are no plans to commission such research. Applications to remove children from the jurisdiction (of England and Wales) are made under Section 13(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989. The Section stipulates that where a residence order made under the Act is in force with respect to a child, no person may"remove him from the United Kingdom; without either the written consent of every person who has parental responsibility for the child or the leave of the court".

  However, to take a child out of the country either parent requires the written or oral consent of the other parent, even if it is for less than one month. Where there is a residence order in place, the parent in whose favour the residence order is made may remove or send the child outside the UK for up to one month, provided there are no other court orders in place, e.g. a prohibited steps order. When making a residence order, the court may grant the necessary leave to remove the child either generally or for specific purpose.

  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2003,Official Report, column 631W, on divorced parents, if he will estimate the percentage of cases in which divorced mothers are successful in obtaining leave to remove their children from the United Kingdom. [136100]

  Mr. Lammy
  We do not have the data available to enable such an estimate to be made. Figures are kept of the total number of orders made under section 13 of the Children Act 1989 for removal from the jurisdiction since 2000 (when figures were first collected). Separate figures are not held for mothers and fathers.

  Forfeiture/Security of Tenure Inquiry
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the scope of the inquiry by the Law Commission into forfeiture and security of tenure; and when he expects the inquiry to be completed. [135877]
  776W
  Mr. Lammy
  The Law Commission is carrying out two reviews daling with forfeiture and tenancy issues:

  (1) The 'Termination of Tenancies' review addresses the whole law of forfeiture including the right of landlords to terminate a tenancy by physical re-entry. The Commission hopes to complete a consultation paper this year. A report will be published later.

  (2) The 'Housing in the Rented Sector' review considers the legal basis of landlord and tenant relationships, in particular, the form of tenancies offered by local authorities, other social landlords, and by private landlords. A report will be published on 5 November followed by a further report and draft Bill next year.

  Legal Representation (Deaths in Custody)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Secretary of State will make funding available for legal representation of families whose children have died in custody. [135787]

  Mr. Lammy
  An applicant who is a member of the deceased's immediate family may obtain public funding for representation at an inquest, where the deceased has died in custody, if:

  (i) the applicant satisfies the standard financial eligibility tests, and

  (ii) legal representation is necessary to assist the coroner to investigate the case effectively.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many n ieetings(a) he and (b) other Ministers in his Department have held with (i) Lord Bingham, (ii) Lord Woolf and (iii) Lord Irvine since he took office. [127404]

  Mr. Lammy
  Since taking office the Secretary of State has had three meetings with Lord Bingham and five meetings with Lord Woolf. He has not met with Lord Irvine.

  I have had one meeting with Lord Woolf, Christopher Leslie has met him twice and Lord Pilkin has met with him once. Don Touhig and Anne Maguire have not met with Lord Woolf.

  None of the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State has met with Lord Bingham or Lord Irvine.

  Petitions
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many(a) company winding-up petitions, (b) creditors' petitions, (c) debtors' petitions and (d) insolvency petitions were issued per quarter in each year since 1997, broken down by (i) county court, (ii) county and (iii) region. [136799]

  Mr. Leslie
  A copy of the figures requested has been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Public Information
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what
  777W
  requirements there are that changes in Government regulations and orders should be made publicly available before they come into force. [136171]

  Mr. Alexander
  I have been asked to reply.

  The arrangements for production of all new regulations and orders are governed by the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 and the Statutory Instruments Regulations 1947. The Cabinet Office issues guidance to Departments in the form of the Statutory Instrument Practice manual (SIP), which can be downloaded from HMS Online at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/services/si_practice.htm

  The guidance in SIP sets out that the date chosen for the coming into force of new regulations and order s should take into account the production time for printing and publication. Where an instrument creates a new offence, Departments need to ensure that the instrument is issued in good time allowing the public to study the instrument before it comes into force.

  All new instruments issued each day can be accessed on HMS Online at: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/whatsnew.htm and in the Statutory Instruments Issue List, which is published as part of The Stationery Office (TSO) Daily List of Publications. It is good practice for Departments to ensure publicity for all new instruments before they come into force.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps she has taken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service uses powers available under the Police Reform Act 2002 when dealing with cases of antisocial behaviour. [136221]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has issued guidance on the procedures 10 be followed in cases when it is appropriate to remind a court of its power to make an order on conviction in criminal proceedings pursuant to section 1 C of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988, as amended by the Police Reform Act 2002.

  In appropriate cases, the prosecutor will remind the court of its power to make an order on conviction and will draw the court's attention to the facts of the case that are relevant to the making of an order, together with details of any relevant previous convictions.

  The Anti-Social Behaviour Bill seeks to provide the CPS with express power to apply for orders on conviction and to call additional evidence to be led at a contested hearing of an order on conviction, which need not be restricted or linked to the criminal case before court. The CPS will issue further guidance and training to reflect these changes.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Solicitor-General what action she has taken to ensure that the Crown Prosecution in Service co-operates with(a) local authorities and (b) police forces to deal with cases of antisocial behaviour. [136222]
  778W
  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has assembled a project team to deal with issues arising from the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. The aims of the project are: firstly, to develop national guidance with the police dealing with the evidence required to pursue an order on conviction and the type of conditions to be sought; and secondly, to develop local protocols with the police and local authorities as to when it will be appropriate for each agency to take the lead in dealing with applications for orders and prosecuting breaches.

  The Home Office Anti-Social Behaviour Unit has agreed to fund a network of 10 to 12 local anti-social behaviour prosecutors within the Crown Prosecution Service. These local experts will engage with the local community and will work with a central project team to issue guidance. They will assist in developing protocols with local agencies, encourage the use of orders on conviction and coordinate local training.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many anti-social behaviour prosecutors will join the Crown Prosecution Service; and what their powers will be. [136270]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Home Office Anti-Social Behaviour Unit has agreed to fund a network of 10 to 12 local antisocial behaviour prosecutors with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). These local experts will engage with the local community and will work with a central team to issue guidance, develop protocols and provide training across the CPS.

  The prosecutors will be deployed in areas where a high level of antisocial behaviour orders are sought, although they will be expected to share good practice across the CPS. They will: prosecute antisocial behaviour and low-level disorder offences; establish good links with local communities and agencies; encourage the use of orders on conviction; and coordinate local training.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor intends to reply to the letter to him dated 21 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. C. Whitehurst. [85146]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor replied to the right hon. Member's letter on 4 December. I apologise to the right hon. Member for the delay in responding to his letter. This was due to an administrative error, and officials have reviewed procedures for handling correspondence as a result.

  Family Proceedings Rules Committee
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will place the schedule of meetings of the Family Proceedings Rules Committee for the next six months in the Library. [84756]
  779W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Family Proceedings Rule Committee has no statutory obligation to meet to conduct its business. Drafts of Family Proceedings Rules are circulated to Members for comments and, when they are content, for signature.

HEALTH

  Genetically Modified Food
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) published on post-marketing monitoring of the safety of GM food for people and GM feed for animals. [136191]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has funded a feasibility study on the post-market monitoring of genetically modified (GM) foods. The report from this study was published on the FSA website on 23 July 2003. No research has been commissioned on the post-market monitoring of GM animal feed.

  Accidental Injury
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the local surveillance of accidental injury. [135316]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: The South West Public Health Observatory is working on a pilot basis with the national health service-wide clearing service to run quarterly extracts of specific variables from the accident and emergency minimum data set in the South West. There are currently problems with the quality of the data, and with the level of participation by individual trusts. If these problems can be resolved, it may be possible to replicate the system in other regions.

  Breast Cancer (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average period between screening for breast cancer and notification of the result of the screening was in the Northumberland strategic health authority area for the latest three-month period for which figures are available. [135518]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation of improvements to cancer services in the NHS he has commissioned. [133893]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 October 2003]: A National Cancer Patient Survey took place in 2001. Over 65,000 cancer patients discharged between July 1999 and June 2000 responded. The outcome of the survey was published in July 2002 and is available at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhspatients/cancersurvey. It provides a baseline measurement of cancer patients'
  780W
  experience of care in the national health service against which improvements can be monitored. The results of the survey were shared with, among others, cancer networks and NHS trusts who should have studied their local results and taken action to respond to them. Responsibility for the national survey programme, and therefore repeating this survey, has now moved to the Commission for Health Improvement.

  A Manual of Cancer Services Standards was published in February 2001 against which cancer networks in England can assess the quality of services they are providing. A process of peer review took place in 2001 to assess compliance with these standards. A second round of peer review will commence in summer 2004.

  The "NHS Cancer Plan—Three-year progress report: Maintaining the Momentum" available at www.doh.ov.uk/cancer/progressreport2003 was published on 28 October 2003. It describes overall progress on implementation of the NHS Cancer Plan.

  Chorley and South Ribble Hospital
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been treated at Chorley and South Ribble Hospital accident and emergency in the Last 12 months; how many people from Chorley have been taken to Royal Preston Hospital accident and emergency; and how many patients waited longer than four hours for treatment at(a) Chorley and (b) Preston hospitals. [135805]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available.

  Disabled People (Assistance)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what non-financial assistance is available to families with disabled(a) adults and (b) children. [136148]

  Dr. Ladyman
  All disabled people have full access to national health service primary, secondary and tertiary health care services. Disabled people have the right to receive an assessment of their care needs by their local social services department. Those eligible, according to local criteria, may receive a wide range of services to meet their need, provided as a "package" of support by social services and/or the health service.

  Services available include:

  Advice, guidance and counselling;

  Home care and home help;

  Equipment and adaptations to use at home;

  Day time opportunities/day centres providing facilities for recreation and training for independent living skills;

  Day care, covering day nurseries, registered childminders and part-time playgroups respite care provision, either in peoples own homes or elsewhere;

  Nursing and medical support.

  In addition, people may receive direct payments, which are cash payments in lieu of social services, giving individuals greater choice and control over how their support needs are met—allowing people to buy their own package of care.

  Domestic Accidents
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) other Government Departments, (b) local authorities and (c) other agencies to establish a co-ordinated approach to preventing accidents in the home. [135317]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 30 October 2003]: Other Government Departments, local authorities, and other agencies were represented on the Accidental Injury Task Force, whose report was published in October 2002. Subsequent discussions with Government Departments and with regional directors of public health have shown that better co-ordination will depend on integrating injury prevention into broader programmes on the needs of children and older people, with particular emphasis on health inequalities.

  This is now being pursued in implementing the older peoples' national service framework (NSF), in preparing the remainder of the NSF for children, and in contributing to cross-Government policy proposals for these groups, for example in the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Older People.

  Family Planning Clinics
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has(a) to develop family planning clinics and (b) for the development of a career structure for family planning doctors. [135886]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A stated aim of the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV is to reduce levels of unintended pregnancies, and the provision of good quality contraception services will play a major role in achieving this aim. Contraceptive services should be available through a range of settings including general practice and specialist care settings, and the Department has issued guidance on good practice in commissioning those services, as well as providing addition al investment of £1 million this year to improve access. The Department has also convened a group of experts, including representatives from the Faculty of Family Planning and Reproductive Healthcare, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Family Planning Association, to define and implement a work-plan to support the improvement of contraception services at primary care trust level. This group will also work with the Faculty of Family Planning to consider issues of staffing and career development.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice the Chief Medical Officer has given on the potential effects of fluoridated drinking water for a patient diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder. [134246]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department is not aware of any evidence that the effects of fluoridated drinking water differ between people with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

  Food Supplements Directive
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent 782W
  meeting between the Food Standards Agency and the European Food Safety Authority to discuss difficulties anticipated by industry in preparing dossiers of information to support the inclusion of substances on the lists of nutrients and nutrient sources appended to the Food Supplements Directive; and what plans the Food Standards Agency has to continue that dialogue. [135264]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 14 October, representatives from food supplement industry trade associations met with representatives of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to discuss requirements for dossiers supporting addition of nutrient sources to the lists appended to the Food Supplements Directive. The meeting was constructive. EFSA representatives indicated that applicants should submit data establishing the identity and purity of the nutrient source, and any available safety data. EFSA would then advise whether further data were required, taking into account similarities with substances, which have already been approved either as nutrient sources or as additives. This, together with advice that combined dossiers for similar substances are welcome, means that dossier preparation costs for many of the 'missing' substances will be significantly lower than previously estimated. The Food Standards Agency is writing to inform interested parties of the outcome and will continue to liaise with EFSA and European Commission representatives on this issue.

  Gene Transfer
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what published research involving humans he has assessed which examines the potential for horizontal gene transfer from GM bacteria to gut bacteria; how many people were involved in the experiments; what evidence of gene transfer was identified; and what research he has commissioned on this subject. [136064]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: The Department of Health has not commissioned any research that looks at horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified (GM) bacteria to gut bacteria. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) however has published research on the use of human volunteers to examine the potential for horizontal gene transfer from GM food to gut bacteria. Seven people were involved in the study. No intact DNA was shown to be transferred to intestinal tract bacteria. The current state of knowledge regarding gene transfer was reviewed in the GM science review. This concluded that "transgenic DNA is no different from other DNA consumed as part of the normal diet and it will have a similar fate". The science review is available in the Library.

  Applications to use oral GM bacteria are assessed on a case by case basis by either the Health and Safety Executive (under the Contained Use Regulations), or by the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (under the Deliberate Release Regulations). Each application involving the use of GM bacteria is comprehensively evaluated with regard to safety, including gene transfer.

  Genetics Research
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the organisations which have applied for the special research funding announced in the Government's White Paper on Genetics, (b) the value of each bid and (c) the single gene disorders related to each bid. [135486]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]: Bids are treated in strict confidence and the information requested cannot be given. The specific clinical conditions to be addressed through the funding for both pharmacogenetic research and research into gene therapy for single gene disorders will depend on what bids are submitted by the research community and how the individual bids stand up to rigorous assessment through peer review. Details of grants awarded will be added to the national research register at www.doh.gov.uk/research/nrr.htm.

  Genito-urinary Medicine
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many genito-urinary management clinics there are in(a) Chesham and Amersham and (b) Buckinghamshire. [136574]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer on 5 November 2003]: There are three genito-urinary management (GUM) clinics in Buckinghamshire; at Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Wycombe. There are no GUM clinics in Chesham and Amersham.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of genitourinary management clinics in England. [136575]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 November 2003]: The Department of Health is working to improve access to genito urinary medicine (GUM) services. Primary care trusts should ensure that local GUM services are designed to meet local needs. The Department of Health is supporting them in this role through the provision of additional investment to `pump-prime' GUM services and address long-waiting times and backlogs in those areas where it is most needed.

  £13 million was invested in GUM services in 2003–04 and over £6 million in 2002–03, with additional funding of £5 million announced this year in our response to the Health Select Committee's report on sexual health. To support those areas with little or no GUM services, or where services are struggling to cope with demand, a further £2 million in 2003–04 will be used to establish a small number of development schemes to pump-prime the establishment of new services or further develop those already in existence.

  The Department of Health is also continuing to work to increase the role of primary care in the provision of sexual health services which will help to relieve the pressure on GUM services.

  The Department of Health is also continuing to work to increase the role of primary care in the provision of sexual health services which will help to relieve the pressure on GUM services.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research evidence he has collated on the(a) incidence and (b) spread of head lice in schools; and what advice he offers head teachers to deal with the problem; [136009]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Department for Education and Skills on strategies to eliminate head lice in schools. [136010]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department's policy research programme and the central national health service research and development programmes are not currently supporting research into this subject, due to the pressure of other priorities. The Medical Research Council (MRC), which is funded by the Office of Science and Technology, commissions most of the Government's research into bio-medical and clinical issues. The MRC is always open to new sound scientific proposals, in competition with other applications.

  Head lice infestation is a relatively common problem among school age children, which is dealt with at local level. Our policy, which is shared by the Department for Education and Skills, is to encourage a "whole school approach" to the detection and treatment of head lice. This entails encouraging parents to check their children and other family members for head lice as need arises, and arranging treatment where necessary with such advice and support from the local primary health care team (general practitioner, health visitor, school nurse or local pharmacist) as they may require. If this exercise is successfully undertaken at the same time by all parents of children within a school, then the spread of head lice will be arrested.

  This Department is in regular contact with the Department for Education and Skills on a range of health issues relating to pupils' health, including the treatment of head lice. Officials from both Departments provide advice to schools and parents on head lice control, including a leaflet containing guidance on prevention and treatment. This is also available on the Department's website at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/headlice/including translations in 10 languages.

  Health Care (York)
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what NHS expenditure(a) in cash terms and (b) at current prices on services provided by GP surgeries, other than NHS prescription items, was in York in each year since 1992. [135958]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information for York is not available. The table shows information for the nearest geographical match to York.

  North Yorkshire expenditure on services provided by GP surgeries for each year

  £000

  Cash terms

  Current prices

  1992–93

  37,254

  47,836

  1993–94

  37,422

  46,604

  1994–95

  38,293

  47,167

  1995–96

  39,029

  46,551

  1996–97

  38,189

  44,214

  785W

  North Yorkshire expenditure on services provided by GP surgeries for each year

  £000

  Cash terms

  Current prices

  1997–98

  40,629

  45,611

  1998–99

  41,450

  45,297

  1999–2000

  39,544

  42,431

  2000–01

  40,612

  42,839

  2001–02

  48,240

  49,615

  Sources:

  1. North Yorkshire Family Health Services Authority audited annual accounts 1992–93 to 1995–96.

  2. North Yorkshire Health Authority audited annual accounts 1996–97 to 1998–99.

  3. North Yorkshire Health Authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  4. Selby and York Primary Care Trust audited summarisation schedules 2001–02.

  5. HM Treasury GDP Deflator.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Healthwhat capital investment(a) in cash terms and (b) at current prices has been at York District Hospital in each year since 1992. [135962]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The requested information is shown in the table.

  York Hospitals NHS Trust: Net Book Value of Purchased Capital Additions for each year

  £000

  Cash terms

  Current prices

  1992–93

  5,791

  7,346

  1993–94

  6,028

  7,507

  1994–95

  7,456

  9,184

  1995–96

  8,841

  10,545

  1996–97

  2,708

  3,135

  1997–98

  1,457

  1,636

  1998–99

  3,185

  3,481

  1999–2000

  2,778

  2,981

  2000–01

  6,571

  6,931

  2001–02

  4,159

  4,278

  Source:

  York Hospitals NHS Trust: Net Book Value of Purchased Capital Additions for each year.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were in training at York nursing school in each year since 1992. [136050]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Pre-registration nurses at the School of Nursing, York University

  At 1 April

  Number

  19921

  357

  19931

  319

  1994

  554

  1995

  488

  1996

  380

  1997

  397

  1998

  425

  1999

  491

  2000

  544

  2001

  596

  2002

  638

  2003

  637

  1 Figures for 1992 and 1993 relate to York and Scarborough College of Nursing only, as Harrogate and Northallerton School of Nursing was a separate institution at this time.

  Source:

  University of York.
  786W
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made with implementing the National Service Framework for Older People in York. [136052]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Selby and York Primary Care Trust (PCT) submitted a report on progress towards the milestones set out in the national service framework to its older people's partnership board in September 2003. This report shows the work, which has been done to bring about improvements for older people, to work in partnership across organisational boundaries and to ensure a sharp focus on the development of services that are person/patient-centred, joined-up, timely and active in promoting health in older age. A full copy of the report is available from Selby and York PCT.

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when digital hearing aids will be offered to NHS patients in York. [136053]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  York Hospitals National Health Service Trust will begin fitting digital hearing aids as part of the modernised hearing aid service by March 2004.

  Health Services (North-West)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent in the NHS in the North West since 1992. [134893]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Expenditure in the area covered by the former North West Regional Office and the North West Regional Health Authority areas since 1992–93 is shown in the table.

  £ million

  1992–93

  3,848

  1993–94

  4,047

  1994–95

  4,383

  1995–96

  4,564

  1996–97

  4,427

  1997–98

  4,290

  1998–99

  4,712

  1999–2000

  5,497

  2000–01

  5,996

  2001–02

  6,348

  2002–03

  7,510

  Total

  55,622

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on the North West Regional Office area as in 2001–02, taking into consideration boundary changes over the period.

  2. Figures do not include NHS expenditure, which is not accounted for by the health authorities, eg General Dental Services.

  3. Figures are not consistent between years as there have been considerable changes in the types of expenditure accounted for by health authorities in different years, eg prescribing expenditure.

  4. All figures are cash based.

  Sources:

  1992–93 to 1995–96 audited accounts of Family Health Services Authorities

  1992–93 to 1995–96 audited accounts of District and Regional Health Authorities

  1996–97 to 1998–99 audited accounts of Health Authorities
  787W
  1999–2000 to 2001–02 audited summarisation forms of Health Authorities

  2002–03 audited summarisation forms of Strategic Health Authorities

  2000–01 to 2002–03 audited summarisation schedules of Primary Care Trusts

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the long-term savings to the NHS that might be achieved by the provision of free prescriptions for people with long-term mental health problems. [135963]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has not made an assessment of the long-term savings to the national health service of providing free prescriptions for people with mental health problems.

  Our policy is to help those who may have difficulty in paying prescription charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements. By using a prescription prepayment certificate, no one need pay more than £32.90 for four months or £90.40 for 12 months, for all the NHS medication that they are prescribed.

  Nurses
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions in the Statutory Instrument on Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Rules Approval, SI No. 873, 1983, are still in force. [136164]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]The provisions made in these rules (now operated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council) remain effective. These remain in force by virtue of schedule 2 of the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 (S.I. 2002/253).

  Paediatric Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that drug treatments currently licensed for adults are evaluated and made available for paediatric use. [134495]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The current legislative framework governing the authorisation of medicinal products contains neither obligations nor incentives to either evaluate medicinal products for use in the paediatric population or to make the products available for paediatric use. The United Kingdom is taking an active part in developing European legislation, which will establish a system of obligations and incentives for the development and evaluation of medicines for paediatrics use. This is, however, unlikely to be finalised before 2006.

  In the meantime, the UK will continue to use the existing regulatory framework to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to evaluate medicines for use in the paediatric population. The Committee on Safety of Medicines, an independent expert committee that advises the Licensing Authority has established a paediatric sub-group to provide expert advice on the regulatory strategy to improve the availability of medicines licensed for use in children.
  788W
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) routinely asks companies for paediatric development plans where appropriate, both pre- and post-licensing. In addition, when a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product is granted or amended the pharmaceutical companies are required by the Licensing Authority to provide evidence-based statements on paediatric use in the summary of product characteristics. The MHRA monitors authorisations granted for the paediatric use of medicines in the United States and contacts the marketing authorisation holder with a request for the data to be submitted to the MHRA for assessment. Several companies have submitted data in response to such requests and UK authorisations for paediatric use have been granted as a result. In other cases, the MHRA has asked companies to consider developing formulations of medicinal products that are specifically adapted for paediatric use. Following positive responses, the MHRA is actively discussing formulation development plans with several companies.

  The MHRA is keeping the UK pharmaceutical industry informed of legislative developments at the European level and has offered to give regulatory and scientific advice on the development of medicines for paediatric use.

  Palliative Care
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those hospices that have received funds from the money which was earmarked for palliative care in the NHS Cancer Plan in 2003–04; and how much of the money has been retained by NHS trusts; [135385]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the grounds on which funds from the NHS Cancer Plan for palliative care are allocated to hospices. [135386]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We do not hold a centralised list of those hospices that have received funding from the additional £50 million for specialist palliative care, the allocation of which was recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. This additional money is for specialist palliative care services in their entirety, and not for voluntary hospices alone. 1 he overall level of funding for hospices, both from allocation to cancer networks from the £50 million and from local resources, is a matter for local discussion and agreement.

  The National Partnership Group for palliative care (NPG) which is made up of representatives from the voluntary sector (including hospices), the national health service and the Department, set out clear criteria for the use of the funding, which included evidence of local consultation and partnership working between all stakeholders in deciding how the additional funding should be invested.

  Polymer Fume Fever
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has collated on a possible relationship between the creation of toxins from the heating of Teflon-coated pans and the onset of polymer fever in humans; and if he will make a statement. [133102]
  789W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  'Polymer fume fever' is a term applied to an influenza-like illness associated with the inhalation of products resulting from heating polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, marketed under the trade name Teflon) and other fluorocarbon polymers, to temperatures of about 300–450 degrees centigrade. These temperatures are well above those involved in cooking food in non-stick pans. Polymer fume fever is usually a mild and self limiting condition. Almost all reports of this condition relate to occupational exposure. Although the temperatures needed could arise from the misuse of non-stick pans, this does not appear to be a significant problem in practice. There is only one case report in the published literature, which attributed these symptoms to exposure to fumes from an unattended cooking pan which overheated (Blandford et al. A case of PTFE poisoning in cockatiels accompanied by polymer fume fever in the owner.Vet Record v.96 175–6 (1975)).

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is in respect of prescription charges for those who suffer long-term mental illness. [135601]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Improving services for people with mental health problems is a priority for the Government. Our policy is to help those who may have difficulty in paying prescription charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements. By using a prescription prepayment certificate, no one need pay more than £32.90 for four months or £90.40 for 12 months for all the national health service medication that they are prescribed.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on (i) the way that different groups are treated when considered for exemptions from prescription charges and (ii) whether charges deter people from having their prescription dispensed; and if he will make a statement. [136073]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No research has been commissioned or evaluated on these matters.

  Our policy is to give priority to helping people who may have difficulty in paying charges, rather than extending the exemption arrangements. The number of prescription items dispensed continues to rise, and the balance between chargeable and free prescriptions has not changed significantly in recent years. We have no plans to change the current charging arrangements.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to abolish prescription charges by 2007; and if he will make a statement. [136115]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Prescription charges provide a valuable contribution to national health service resources. We have no plans to abolish prescription charges.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) four month and (b) 12 month prescription prepayment certificates were issued in each of the last four years. [136421]
  790W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Estimated number of Pre-Payment Certificates (PPCs) issued in England in the last four years

  PPC 4 month

  PPC 12 month

  Total number of PPCs

  1999–2000

  550,000

  330,000

  880,000

  2000–01

  580,000

  370,000

  950,000

  2001–02

  610,000

  420,000

  1,020,000

  2002–03

  640,000

  480,000

  1,110,000

  Note:

  The figures above are estimates compiled from Health Authority returns until September 2002. From October 2002 the Prescription Pricing Authority has been responsible for issuing pre-payment certificates and has provided the data. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much private patient bad debt was written off by NHS trusts in each of the last five years. [135910]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]National health service trusts in England (excluding strategic health authorities and primary care trusts) wrote off the following amounts annually for bad debts and abandoned claims over the past four years:

  1998–99—£1,554,000

  1999–2000—£1,999,000

  2000–01—£2,133,000

  2001–02—£1,445,000

  A provisional estimate for the current financial year (2002–03) is £1,941,000.

  Residential Care
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that persons residing in residential nursing homes whose conditions deteriorate so that they require constant medical attention should have their costs borne by the national health service; and what procedures exist to make such assessments. [136698]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Any individual with a need for health care, which meets criteria for national health service continuing care, will have the costs borne by the NHS, regardless of where they reside. The Government's intention that the NHS should identify these individuals is reflected in proposed directions to the NHS re-emphasising the need to carry out appropriate continuing care assessments wherever it appears that there is a need for such services. All such assessments are informed by the single assessment process.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities in England providing funding for anti-TNF therapy for people with rheumatoid arthritis; and if he will make a statement. [136877]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not held centrally on which primary care trusts are prescribing these drugs. The use of anti-TNF drugs in the community is
  791W
  negligible, but they are used extensively in hospitals. When the National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance on these drugs in March 2002, they recommended that consultant rheumatologists, or consultant paediatric rheumatologists in the case of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, should prescribe them. Information is not held centrally about drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals.

  Information is available on the number of prescription items of drugs that are dispensed in the community in England. Details of these anti-TNF drugs (contained in the British National Formulary paragraph 10.1.3) are included in the Prescription Cost Analysis publication, which can be accessed at www.doh.gov.uk/prescriptionstatistics/index.htm.

  Sexually Transmitted Diseases
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department is doing(a) to reduce the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases among young people and (b) to discourage young people from embarking on early sexual relationships. [136572]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 5 November 2003]The Government's National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV (2001), which recognises that young people are one of the groups disproportionately affected by poor sexual health, aims to reduce the transmission of all sexually transmitted infections.

  The implementation of the strategy includes specific actions targeting young people, for example, the launch last year of a national safer sex campaign, 'The Sex Lottery', for young adults to raise awareness of sexual health and promote safer sex, and initiatives within the national chlamydia screening programme to increase rates of diagnoses and treatment of chlamydia amongst young people—the group most affected by this disease.

  The Government's Teenage Pregnancy Strategy (1999) encompasses a multi-faceted approach to help young people resist peer pressure to have early sex, improve sex and relationship education, increase access to effective contraception and sexual health services and support parents in talking to their children about sex and relationship issues.

  Smoking-related Deaths
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from(a) smoking-related and (b) secondary smoking-related diseases in each of the last five years. [135657]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information is not available in the form requested. The Health Education Authority 1998 report, "The UK Smoking Epidemic: Deaths in 1995", estimated that in the United Kingdom in 1995 smoking caused more than 120,000 deaths of people aged 35 years or more. A copy of this report is available in the Library.

  The independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health concluded in its 1998 report that, "exposure to environmental smoke is a cause of lung cancer and, in those with long-term exposure, the increased risk is in the order of 20 to 30 per cent.". The committee repeated the explanation of this risk set out earlier in its fourth
  792W
  report that "a 20 to 30 per cent. increased risk in exposed non-smokers would be a rate of 12 to 13 per 100,000 per year. Thus we would expect an additional 2 to 3 lung cancer cases a year per 100,000 non-smokers regularly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke. The numbers of people so exposed are not known precisely". A copy of this report is also available in the Library.

  Social Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of qualified social workers who are not working(a) for social services departments and (b) in social care. [134774]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has not made such estimates.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many student nurses left their courses before qualifying(a) in 2002 and (b) in 2003 to date. [135407]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]The in formation requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to improve the bursaries available to student nurses. [135408]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 November 2003]National health service bursary rates across all professions are considered each year and have been uplifted annually since 1998, including an increase of 10.4 per cent. (well ahead of inflation) in 2001.

  The Department has made a number of other improvements to the NHS bursary scheme, including extension of eligibility for disabled students' allowances and hardship support to diploma level students, and more help with the costs of travel and accommodation. The Government have also committed to introduce help with the costs of child care from 2004.

  My ministerial colleagues and I continue to keep NHS-funded student support arrangements under review in order to ensure that they continue to meet our objectives for the service.

  Vitamin Supplements
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce Vitamin D supplements free to vulnerable children. [136215]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Welfare Food Scheme provides vitamin supplements containing vitamins A, C and D, free of charge, to low income families. All children at risk of Vitamin D deficiency also may be prescribed Vitamin D supplements.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax
  Mr. Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the(a) average and (b) average band D council tax was in the London borough of Greenwich in each year since 1997. [136594]
  793W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  £

  Area Band D council tax for 2 adults

  Average council tax per dwelling

  1996–97

  763

  608

  1997–98

  821

  651

  1998–99

  883

  710

  1999–2000

  883

  711

  2000–01

  883

  710

  2001–02

  911

  734

  2002–03

  954

  774

  2003–04

  1,088

  883

  Mr. Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what t he average council tax was in(a) the North East, (b) the North West, (c) Yorkshire and the Humber, (d) the East Midlands, (e) the West Midlands and (f) the East of England in each financial year since 1995–96. [136596]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information currently available: is tabled as follows. I will write to the hon. Member shortly to give average figures on this basis for 1995–96 to 1998–99.

  Average council tax per dwelling

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  North East

  627

  645

  676

  735

  801

  North West

  680

  699

  733

  774

  840

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  602

  622

  663

  712

  786

  East Midlands

  640

  672

  713

  784

  859

  West Midlands

  642

  670

  718

  111

  855

  East of England

  674

  714

  762

  842

  970

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the gross income threshold is above which individuals are not eligible for council tax benefit. [135359]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no single income threshold, which automatically denies entitlement to council tax benefit. The amount of income a person can receive before they lose entitlement to council tax benefit will be dependent on their personal circumstances, for example the size of their family, and the council tax level of the local authority area in which they live.

  Housing (Older People)
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations on the planning of housing for elderly people he has received in the last 12 months from groups representing older people. [136611]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received various comments on the planning of housing for older people from groups representing or having an interest in older people's housing. These include responses to the recent publication for consultation of "Influencing The Size, Type And Affordability of Housing", which set out proposed changes to the current policies on planning for affordable housing. The Housing and Older People Development Group, which advises the Department of 794W
  Health and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, has also recently discussed the issue of planning of housing for older people.

  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether directions have been made under Section 334 of the Housing Act 1985 to require information on overcrowding. [136940]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. As far as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware, the powers in section 334 of the Housing Act 1985 have not been used by local authorities or my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in recent years. However, all local authorities have carried out assessments of the need for new affordable housing, to underpin their housing strategies. Part 7 of the Local Government Act 2003 puts these strategies on a statut/ory footing for the first time.

  Local Authority Rent Collection
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many times each local authority has used an enforcement agency to collect arrears in each year since 1997; how much money was collected each year by enforcement agencies in each local authority; and if he will list the enforcement agencies used by each local authority. [137135]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Elections
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many allegations of electoral fraud in postal voting for local elections in the North West Region have been(a) reported and (b) investigated in the last 10 years. [134289]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on electoral fraud at elections is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost

  Local Government Grant
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects local government to receive grant based on the Formula Spending Share formulae using 2001 Census data. [136705]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue discussing with local authority representatives how the 2001 Census data might be incorporated into the Formula Spending Shares. A decision will be made following these discussions on whether to use the 2001 Census data in the 2005–06 Formula Spending Shares.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the reason is for reducing the time for planning appeals from six to three months; when it came
  795W
  into force; how many appeals it is expected to change; which appeals it applies to; and how many refusals there were on 5 September. [136941]

  Keith Hill
  The proposal to reduce the time allowed for an applicant to decide whether to lodge an appeal was one of many aimed at speeding up and improving the effectiveness of the planning system announced in the Green Paper "Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change", published in 2002. The amendment is not expected to change any planning appeals, only to speed up the planning process and prevent delays.

  The Amendment Order came into force on 5 September 2003 and reduces the time limit for receipt of section 78 appeals, as specified in article 23(2) of the Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. The reduced time limit also applies to an appeal made under section 78(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The reduced time limit applies to applications received by the local planning authority on or after 5 September 2003.

  The decision on whether to allow a planning permission or not remains within the remit of a local planning authority and as such information on the number of applications refused on 5 September 2003 could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Office Costs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the running costs of Ministers' private offices have been in his Department in each year since 1997. [123103]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 771W.

  Regional Housing Boards
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what arrangements are in place to ensure that there is sufficient expertise on rural housing on Regional Housing Boards; [136038]

  (2) if he will list the membership of each Regional Housing Board, indicating which members has responsibility for rural housing. [136039]

  Keith Hill
  Regional Housing Boards have been formed specifically to include representatives able to act collectively and corporately on all housing issues in their regions, including the needs of rural areas. Each Board is chaired by the Regional Director of the Government Office, the most senior official in each region responsible for rural affairs. Others, particularly the senior representatives from the Housing Corporation, carry rural issues as part of their wider remits. There has also been significant input from rural local authorities and others with an interest in rural issues in development by the Boards of Regional Housing Strategies. The Communities Plan, which introduced the Boards, makes clear that the Countryside Agency must be involved to ensure that all Strategies are rural proofed.

  Board membership, quite rightly, varies to reflect regional variations. Current membership is tabled as follows:
  796W

  Membership of the English Regional Housing Boards (as at October 2003)

  East Midlands

  Jane Todd

  Government Office for the East Midlands (Chair)

  Nick Reed

  Housing Corporation

  Alison Simpson

  East Midlands Development Agency

  Tony Aitchison

  East Midlands Regional Assembly

  Peter Springett

  English Partnerships

  David Lepper

  Countryside Agency

  Bob Walder

  Housing Task Group

  East of England

  Caroline Bowdler

  Government Office for the East of England (Chair)

  David Marlow

  East of England Regional Development Agency

  Brian Stewart

  East of England Regional Assembly

  Cllr Simon Woodbridge

  East of England Regional Assembly

  Cllr Paul Kirkman

  East of England Regional Assembly

  Cllr Trevor Millar

  East of England Regional Assembly

  Mick Sanders

  East of England Regional Housing Forum

  Denis Hone

  English Partnerships

  Nick Reed

  Housing Corporation

  John Dowie

  Government Office for the East of England

  John Street

  Government Office for the East of England

  London

  Liz Meek

  Government Office for London (Chair)

  Corinne Lyons

  Government Office for London

  Anthony Mayer

  Greater London Authority

  Neale Coleman

  Greater London Authority

  Mark Kleinman

  Greater London Authority

  Martin Pilgrim

  Association of London Government

  Genevieve Macklin

  Association of London Government

  Chris Wood

  Association of London Government

  Michael Ward

  London Development Agency

  Steven Douglas

  Housing Corporation

  Duncan Innes

  English Partnerships

  North East

  Jonathan Blackie

  Government Office for the North East (Chair)

  Diana Pierce

  Government Office for the North East

  Alan Clarke

  One North East (North East RDA)

  John Walker

  English Partnerships

  Cllr Peter Mole

  North East Housing Forum

  Cllr Alan Napier

  North East Regional Assembly

  John Carleton

  Housing Corporation

  Jolyon Harrison

  House Builders Federation

  Evelyn Kemp

  North East Council for Tenants and Residents

  Cllr Bob Brady

  Association of North East Councils

  North West

  Keith Barnes

  Government Office for the North West (Chair)

  John Carleton

  Housing Corporation

  Steve Machin

  North West Regional Assembly

  David Shelton

  English Partnerships

  Cllr Noel Spencer

  North West Housing Forum

  Wayne Shand

  North West Development Agency

  Peter Styche

  Government Office for the North West

  South East

  Paul Martin

  Government Office for the South East (Chair)

  Mark Bilsborough

  Government Office for the South East

  Colin Byrne

  Government Office for the South East

  Paul Hudson

  SEEDA (South East England Development Agency)

  Mike Gwilliam

  South East Regional Assembly

  Clive Turner

  Housing Corporation

  Trevor Beattie

  English Partnerships

  Cllr Keith House

  SEEDA (South East England Development Agency)

  Sheila Drew Smith

  Housing Corporation

  Cllr Keith Mitchell

  South East Regional Assembly

  Cllr Don Turner

  South East Regional Assembly

  Cllr Paul Bizzell

  South East Regional Assembly

  Douglas Homer

  South East Regional Assembly

  Sharon Hedges

  South East Regional Assembly

  797W

  Membership of the English Regional Housing Boards (as at October 2003)

  East Midlands

  South West

  Jane Henderson

  Government Office for the South West (Chair)

  Thoss Shearer

  Government Office for the South West

  Clive Turner

  Housing Corporation

  Malcolm Hanney

  South West Regional Assembly

  Bryoney Houlden

  South West Regional Assembly

  Colin Moulton

  South West Regional Development Agency

  Duncan Innes

  English Partnerships

  Pat Crowson

  Local Government Association

  John Barley

  National Housing Federation

  David Seaton

  House Builders Federation

  West Midlands

  Graham Garbutt

  Government Office for the West Midlands (Chair)

  Nick Reed

  Housing Corporation

  John Edwards

  Advantage West Midlands (West Midlands RDA)

  Simon Hodgson

  West Midlands Regional Assembly

  Peter Murray

  English Partnerships

  Steve Gregory

  Regional Housing Partnership

  Rose Poulter

  West Midlands Local Government Association

  Phillipa Holland

  Government Office for the West Midlands

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Felicity Everiss

  Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber (Chair)

  Martin Havenhand

  Yorkshire Forward (Yorkshire and Humber RDA)

  Liz Kerry

  Yorkshire and Humber Assembly

  Cllr Peter Box

  Yorkshire and Humber Assembly

  John Carleton

  Housing Corporation

  Mike Gahagan

  South Yorkshire Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder

  Stuart Whyte

  Hull and E. Riding Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder

  David Carr

  English Partnerships

  Cllr Richard Lewis

  Yorkshire and Humberside Housing Forum

  Michael Hall

  Yorkshire and Humberside Housing Forum

  John Kirkham

  Yorkshire and Humberside Housing Forum

  Social Housing
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will encourage local authorities and housing associations to build a range of properties with varying numbers of bedrooms in agreements made under section 106 of t he Town and Country Planning Act 1990. [136630]

  Keith Hill
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 "Housing" (March 2000) requires local planning authorities to provide wider housing opportunity and choice, and a better mix in the size and type of housing than is currently available.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently published for consultation proposed changes to the current policies on planning for housing mix set out in PPG3. The consultation document "Influencing 1 he Size, Type And Affordability Of Housing" proposes that local planning authorities should plan to meet the housing requirements of the whole community by planning for a mix of housing types and sizes that reflects up-to-date assessments. It proposes new policy which would allow local planning authorities, where appropriate local plan policies are in place, to reject developments that conflict with the objective of widening housing choice.
  798W
  A local planning authority can secure a range of sizes of housing either by granting permission to a planning application or by attaching a planning condition, where this information is not provided by a planning application. Alternatively, notes could be appended to an outline permission to give the developer guidance as to what precise form of development will be acceptable to the local planning authority. A section 106 agreement can be employed to secure that some of the housing for which planning permission has been granted must be affordable housing, and the agreement can specify the type of that housing.

  Total Cost Indicators
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will permit Total Cost Indicators to increase in line with the increase in property prices. [136629]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Corporation launched their new approach to investment on 24 October. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has agreed that as part of the phased introduction of the 'new approach' that total cost indicators (TCIs) will be phased out over time. For the Social Housing Grant bidding round for 2004–05 and 2005–06, TCIs have been uprated by an average of 8 per cent. using a range of 5 per cent. to 15 per cent. based on existing TCI groupings.

TREASURY

  Air Transport
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to increase air passenger duty; [136399]

  (2) what plans he has to end the tax exemption status of aviation fuel. [136400]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) on 28 October 2003,Official Report, column 206W. Levels of all taxes are reviewed as part of the annual Budget process, taking account of a range of social, economic and environmental considerations. The Chicago Convention prohibits the imposition of taxes or charges on fuel kept on board aircraft and consumed on international flights. The UK is also bound by bilateral air service agreements which impose further restrictions.

  The 2002 Pre-Budget Report stated that the Government would discuss with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments for ensuring that the industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate, reduce its contribution to global warming, local air and noise pollution. The Government's views will be set out in the Air Transport White Paper, due to be published later this year.

  ASPIRE Programme
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 141W, who has been the Board member responsible for project ASPIRE since the planning first commenced; when the intention to engage in a market

  799W
  making exercise in support of project ASPIRE was first committed to by Inland Revenue; when the potential suppliers who took part in the market making exercise were first selected by Inland Revenue for that purpose; and what action Inland Revenue subsequently took after 12 April 2000 to the end of July 2001 to ensure that maximum value for public money expended upon project ASPIRE was obtained. [136562]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Board of the Inland Revenue has set up a Superintending Group to oversee the work of ASPIRE, which is chaired by Sir Nicholas Montagu KCB. the Chairman of the Inland Revenue.

  As I said in my answer of 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 141W, the market-making exercise was conceived by the Inland Revenue between August and October 2001; it was also committed to at this time. Potential suppliers were also identified between August and October 2001 as part of the planning for the market-making exercise.

  Bank Accounts
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people have taken up basic bank accounts in the UK; and what percentage this represents of all UK personal bank accounts. [136444]

  Ruth Kelly
  Latest figures from the British Bankers Association show that at the end of June 2003, the total number of basic bank accounts was 6,063,327. At the end of 2002, the total number of personal accounts (Major British Banking Groups) was 111,847,000. Basic bank accounts represent around 5-6 per cent. of all personal accounts using these figures.

  Crown Estate Income
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income the Crown Estate has received from rents paid for(a) marinas and (b) piers in each year since 1997. [136459]

  Ruth Kelly
  The figures for rents received for piers and marinas in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are in the table.

  The information for Scotland is not readily available prior to the current financial year. This is because information held on foreshore lease arrangements in Scotland in previous years cannot readily identify income from piers and marinas. However, the estimated income for the current financial year in Scotland is £95,000 from piers and £60,000 from marinas, and this would be indicative of income in previous years.

  £

  Piers

  Marinas

  1997

  9,375

  574,960

  1998

  9,375

  624,974

  1999

  9,375

  714,896

  2000

  10,500

  574,260

  2001

  10,500

  738,504

  2002

  11,500

  996,703

  2003

  12,500

  1,242,219

  Total (excluding Scotland)

  73,125

  5,466,516

  800W
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue the Crown Estate has collected from charges levied on cables crossing its land in each year since 1997; and how much the Crown Estate has charged per kilometre of cable laid(a) on the seabed and (b) over ground in each year since 1997. [136460]

  Ruth Kelly
  Since 1997 the information requested is as follows:Land based cables

  Cables that cross land, or connect Scottish Islands to the UK mainland for domestic purposes, are covered by the British Telecom Master Agreement, which is ex pressed as a lump sum payment. This agreement is negotiated between BT and the Crown Estate and covers not only cables, but also poles, struts, stays, joint boxes, etc. that cross land.

  Revenue (£ million)

  1997

  0.43

  1998

  0.58

  1999

  0.58

  2000

  0.65

  2001

  0.65

  2002

  1.05

  2003

  1.05

  Seabed cables

  The Crown Estate holds consultation with the United Kingdom Cable Protection Committee (UKCPC) in respect of telecommunication cable systems that either transit UK waters or land at some point on the UK coast. The agreement relates to international systems only. The agreement sets out fixed charges for single destination and self-healing loop systems, regardless of the length of cable involved.

  Revenue (£ million)

  1997

  1.22

  1998

  1.63

  1999

  2.65

  2000

  3.54

  2001

  3.79

  2002

  4.98

  2003

  5.07

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 27 October 2003,Official Report, column 38W, on Crown Estate income, how much income has been received by the Crown Estate from rents paid for cables which connect (a) Orkney, (b) Shetland and (c) other Scottish Islands to the UK mainland for each financial year since 1997; and what estimate the Government have made of the impact on UK businesses of charges levied by the Crown Estate for cables that use the seabed. [136496]

  Ruth Kelly
  Revenue paid to The Crown Estate for cables to Orkney, Shetland and other Scottish Islands from the UK mainland is calculated under the British Telecom Master Agreement. The revenue is not calculated for each specific piece of land that is crossed and therefore information for cables connecting individual Scottish Islands is not identifiable. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today
  801W
  regarding the revenue received by the Crown Estate from cables crossing either the seabed or land managed by the Crown Estate since 1997.

  Rents charged by the Crown Estate for use of the seabed are establishedby professional valuers in negotiation with users, and where appropriate, involve consultation with the relevant industry or interest groups. The rents are set at levels appropriate to the market conditions and must not take advantage of any monopoly interest. The Crown Estate must comply with the requirements placed upon it by Parliament under The Crown Estate Act 1961, with regards to the maintenance of the Estate and the income, which it yields. The Crown Estate manages the estate according to sound commercial principles, and also understands and works with the industries that use its assets to ensure that high standards of management and stewardship are followed.

  Firearms
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answers of 15 October 2003,Official Report, column 280W, and 14 July 2003, Official Report, column 133W, whether firearms include shotguns for licensing purposes; of the firearms controlled by HM Customs at Farnborough airport in 1999 how many were not presented with a valid firearms licence or British visitor firearms licence by the individuals declaring them to customs officers on the date of entry to the UK; and how many firearms were prohibited within the meaning of the Firearms Acts. [136563]

  John Healey
  Firearms include shot guns for import and domestic licensing purposes. Of the importations of firearms controlled by Customs at Farnborough airport in 1999 one was a prohibited weapon within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968 and did not have a valid firearms licence or British Visitor's Permit.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many illegal fireworks have been seized on entry to the UK at the port of Hull in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [136356]

  John Healey
  17,400 fireworks weighing approximately 3.5 tonnes have been seized at the port of Hull in the 12 months to 31 October 2003.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answers of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 141W, and 8 September 2003, Official Report, column 103W, on the Inland Revenue, whether Commissioners of Inland Revenue were given objectives relating to Project ASPIRE or its antecedents which attracted performance-related pay in 1999–2000 to 2002–03. [136564]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Commissioners of the Inland Revenue have Performance Agreements in the same way as all other staff. These contain agreed objectives that are relevant to their job but the Agreement and its contents are personal to the individual. Commissioners can earn performance-related pay under the pay system that applies to the Senior Civil Service, but details 802W
  of performance appraisal and consequential pay adjustments are always treated as confidential information.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answers of 15 October 2003,Official Report, column 280W, and 14 October 2003, Official Report, column 139W, what the destination offices were in 2000–01 of Inland Revenue officers posted from the Business Tax Group, within International Division, broken down by (a) Business Tax Group Deputy Director's Office, (b) Policy Team and (c) Advisory/Casework Team. [136565]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It would be inappropriate to disclose the information requested, as it would facilitate the identification of individual members of staff of the Inland Revenue. Exemption 8(a) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information applies in this case.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 8 September 2003,Official Report, column 103W, on what date the Inland Revenue submitted its Supplementary Memorandum, as published in the 29 Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 2002–03, HC 332, to the Committee of Public Accounts. [136820]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Supplementary Memorandum to which the hon. Member refers was submitted to the Committee of Public Accounts on 12 February 2003.

  Oil and Gas Industry
  Sir Robert Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the draft EU constitution on the Treasury's powers to set the fiscal regime for the exploitation of oil and gas reserves from the UK continental shelf. [R] [135325]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any changes to the provisions of the existing EU Treaties, including in relation to energy matters, require the unanimous agreement of all member states. The Government have made it clear in their White Paper, "The British Approach to the European Union Inter-governmental Conference 2003", that they will insist that tax matters continue to be decided by unanimity.

  Pensions
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates the cost would be in this financial year to the Treasury of exempting the state retirement pension from income tax. [136795]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The cost of exempting the state retirement pension for the purposes of income tax is £4.6 billion in 2003–04.

  This estimate was based on the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with the Budget 2003 forecasts.

  Property Sales (Tax)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual revenue that would be raised from a 40 per cent. tax rate on profits from the sale of property. [136622]
  803W
  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates of the yield from imposing capital gains tax at 40 per cent. on profits from the sale of property are only available at disproportionate cost.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much, as a percentage of GDP, has been spent on(a) health, (b) education and (c) defence in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) each other member of the EU in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [136521]

  Ruth Kelly
  Financial year figures for UK expenditure on health, education and defence are as follows:

  Percentage GDP

  1998–99 outturn

  1999–2000 outturn

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2003–03

  Education

  4.5

  4.5

  4.6

  4.9

  5.1

  Health

  5.3

  5.5

  5.6

  6.0

  6.3

  Defence

  2.6

  2.5

  2.6

  2.4

  2.4

  Source:

  Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2003 (Cm 5901)

  Figures for EU member states are shown in the tables as follows. These are on a calendar year basis.

  Health

  Percentage GEP

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  BE

  6.2

  6.3

  6.4

  6.6

  6.7

  DK

  5.2

  5.3

  5.2

  5.4

  5.6

  DE

  6.3

  6.3

  6.3

  6.3

  —

  GR

  2.4

  2.6

  2.5

  4.1

  —

  ES

  —

  5.4

  5.4

  5.3

  —

  FR

  7.8

  7.7

  7.8

  7.9

  —

  IE

  5.9

  5.7

  5.9

  6.3

  —

  IT

  5.7

  5.8

  6.1

  6.3

  —

  LU

  4.9

  4.6

  4.2

  4.9

  5.0

  NL

  4.0

  4.0

  4.0

  4.1

  5.0

  AT

  8.0

  7.9

  7.5

  5.8

  —

  PT

  6.1

  6.3

  6.7

  6.8

  —

  FI

  5.9

  5.9

  5.8

  6.0

  —

  SE

  6.3

  6.4

  6.3

  6.6

  —

  Education

  Percentage GDP

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  BE

  6.4

  6.2

  6.1

  6.2

  6.4

  DK

  8.0

  8.0

  8.0

  8.3

  8.3

  DE

  4.4

  4.3

  4.3

  4.2

  —

  GR

  3.7

  3.7

  3.8

  3.8

  —

  ES

  —

  4.4

  4.4

  4.3

  —

  FR

  6.2

  6.3

  6.1

  6.0

  —

  IE

  4.3

  4.2

  4.1

  4.3

  —

  IT

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  5.1

  —

  LU

  5.1

  4.9

  4.4

  4.7

  5.1

  NL

  4.7

  4.8

  4.7

  4.8

  4.9

  AT

  6.0

  5.9

  5.8

  5.8

  —

  PT

  6.7

  6.9

  6.9

  6.9

  —

  FI

  6.5

  6.4

  6.2

  6.4

  —

  SE

  7.4

  7.6

  6.9

  7.7

  —

  804W

  Defence

  Percentage GDP

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  BE

  1.3

  1.3

  1.2

  1.3

  1.2

  DK

  1.7

  1.7

  1.6

  1.7

  1.6

  DE

  1.3

  1.3

  1.2

  1.2

  —

  GR

  3.1

  3.1

  3.3

  3.2

  —

  ES

  —

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  —

  FR

  2.6

  2.5

  2.4

  2.4

  —

  IE

  0.8

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  —

  IT

  1.1

  1.1

  1.1

  1.1

  —

  LU

  0.6

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  NL

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  1.5

  AT

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  0.9

  —

  PT

  1.7

  1.7

  1.8

  1.7

  —

  Fl

  1.8

  1.7

  1.5

  1.5

  —

  SE

  2.5

  2.5

  2.4

  2.2

  —

  Source:

  Eurostat

  Revenue Recovery
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 14 October 2003,Official Report, column 139W, on the Inland Revenue, if he will break down the x00A3;1.09 million by size of company from which recovery was made. [136881]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All of the transfer pricing cases involving recovery by Revenue Policy International in the year 2000 involved substantial multinational companies.

  Tax Credits
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many nil awards have been made in respect of applications for(a) child and (b) working tax credit. [136149]

  Ruth Kelly
  Details of families who have child and working tax credit awards as at quarterly reference dates are published in "Child and Working Tax Credits. Quarterly Statistics". This appears on the Inland Revenue website at: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/stats/personal-tax-credits/menu.htm

  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 22 October 2003,Official Report, column 620W, on tax credits, what plans he has to make estimates of take-up of (a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit broken down by (i) region, (ii) local authority and (iii) parliamentary constituency. [136358]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As I announced on 31 October, 5.9 million families are now receiving benefits through new tax credits. Estimating take-up will only be possible when the Family Resources Survey for 2003–04 becomes available.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the average waiting time for an NHS tax credit exemptions certificate was in the last year for which figures are available; [136486]

  (2) what the procedure is for the Inland Revenue to provide details to the exemptions office of those people who are eligible for an NHS tax credit exemptions certificate [136487]
  805W
  (3) how many people were eligible for an NHS tax credit exemptions certificate in the last year for which figures are available; and how many are still waiting to receive certificates. [136488]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Claims for tax credits are processed as quickly as possible. Claims for which no further information is required, and which pass the various pre award checks, go through the stages of calculating the award quickly and will normally be in payment within a few days. Once an award has been made, the Inland Revenue identifies the families who are entitled to a health costs exemption certificate and send the data to the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) to issue the certificates on behalf of the Department of Health. On receipt of the data the PPA processes tax credit exception claims and issues the certificate within 30 days of valid data being received. Data are sent monthly from the IR to the PPA.

  Since the new tax credits were introduced in April 2003, the PPA has issued over 1.7 million certificates for tax credit claims. A certificate is issued on an individual basis and a couple would therefore receive one each.

  The latest batch of data was received by the PPA on 24 October 2003 and issue of the associated certificates will be completed by 24 November 2003.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many copies of his Department's publications for people who have been bereaved were printed in 2002–03. [135484]

  £billion

  Gross cost

  Net cost

  Estimated gross cost and the cost net of savings on means-tested benefits and increased income tax revenues of introducing age additions to the basic state pension of £10 per week at the age of 75 from April 2004.

  2.2

  1.4

  Estimated gross cost and the cost net of savings on means-tested benefits and increased income tax revenues of introducing age additions to the basic state pension of £15 per week at the age of 80 from April 2004.

  1.9

  1.2

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in 2003–04 price terms and are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Income-related benefit offsets are calculated using the DWP policy simulation model.

  4. Income tax revenue increases calculated by the Inland Revenue using the 2000–01 Survey of Personal Incomes and April 2003 Budget forecasts.

  5. The two options have been costed separately.

  6. The age addition increases are assumed to be flat-rate increases and are paid in full to all pensioners of applicable age.

  Pension Credit
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls have been made to the pension credit telephone application line, broken down by originating region. [135927]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the form requested. The pension credit application line had received approximately 1.25 million calls as at 25 October 2003.
  806W
  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 3 November 2003]The Department produces a number of leaflets for people who have been bereaved. Around 1,300,000 copies of these leaflets were printed during 2002–03. Information on bereavement benefits is also included in general benefit leaflets.

  Leaflets giving details of bereavement benefits are available from social security offices, post offices, undertakers, registrars and some doctor's surgeries.

  Pensions
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Scotland are in receipt of occupational pensions. [134589]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the financial year 2001–02, an estimated 525,000 people were in receipt of occupational pensions in Scotland; this compares with 5,775,000 people in receipt of occupational pensions in the United Kingdom. A higher percentage of the population are in receipt of occupational pensions in Scotland than in the United Kingdom as a whole (9.1 per cent. in Scotland and 8.6 per cent. in the UK as a whole).

  Source:

  Estimates from Family Resources Survey 2001–02.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate(a) the gross cost and (b) the cost net of savings on means-tested benefits and increased income tax revenues of introducing age additions to the basic state pension of (i) £10 per week at the age of 75 and (ii) £15 per week at the age of 80 from April 2004. [135793]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Winter Fuel Payment
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate how many people in Scotland who became newly entitled for the 2003–04 winter fuel payment and who needed to make a claim before 19 September 2003 in order to receive their payment before Christmas failed to do so; and what the value was of such payments. [135925]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We estimate that around 60,000 people will be newly entitled to the 2003–04 winter fuel payments in Scotland, and of these, around 26,700 should receive their payments automatically. The others
  807W
  would need to claim and we have publicised the availability of winter fuel payments and how to obtain a claim form.

  We are unable to provide any reliable estimate of the value of unclaimed winter fuel payments because the amount due depends on the composition of the household. It is up to an individual, where a claim is necessary, to decide whether or not to make that claim. They have until 30 March 2004 to make a claim for this winter.

  Notes:

  1. New entitlement based on population estimates from the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. Figures for total winter fuel payments taken from the Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment 2002–03 exercise 100 per cent. data. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  3. The estimated number of people who turned 60 between March 2002 and March 2003 and were claiming the state pension should receive automatic payments.

  4. The data for the number of people who should receive automatic payments are from 5 per cent. samples of individual benefits and figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  Sources:

  1. DWP IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample.

  2. Client Group Analysis of IAD Information Centre statistical samples.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in opening schools for girls in(a) Kabul and (b) other parts of Afghanistan. [136211]

  Hilary Benn
  UNICEF has been working in partnership with the Ministry of Education, the United Nations Office of Project Services (UNOPS) and a number of NGOs to rehabilitate over 200 primary schools both in Kabul and in other parts of Afghanistan, with special emphasis on parts of the country where large numbers of people have returned from overseas.

  We contributed £2 million to the UNICEF "Back to School Campaign" during 2002–03. The program targeted approximately 1.78 million primary school children (both girls and boys), and up to 50,000 teachers across Afghanistan. This year, over 4 million children are back at over 6,500 schools. Over one third of the pupils are girls.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to ensure the safety of workers distributing aid funded by his Department in areas outside Kabul, with particular reference to women aid workers. [136350]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID funded aid projects are implemented by its partners, mainly the UN and NGOs. All these partners have strict security guidelines in place to ensure the safety of their staff, including women. Some of these partners have also appointed dedicated professional security officers. The UN has security officers in all of its regional offices providing regular security updates and advice, to the UN and other aid agencies. In addition, ACBAR, the main NGO coordination body in Afghanistan, regularly updates 808W
  and discusses all security related reports and advice with the NGO community. DFID provided a grant of £800,000 to the UN in October 2001 to enhance its safety and security measures.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what facilities are available to Afghan women in order for them to be educated enough to be able to participate in the election. [136558]

  Hilary Benn
  The Constitutional Commission's public education department, run by the UN, has launched a wide-spread public information/education campaign to acquaint Afghans with the Constitutional Loya Jirga process. The electorate is being provided with information packages and training through provincial registration meetings. Concerning women's participation in the elections, specific information and training campaign is currently being developed by the UN but details have yet to be finalised. DFID has contributed £1 million towards the election registration process with a further £2 million allocated from the joint DFID-FCO-MOD Global Conflict Prevention Pool.

  Aid Programmes
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the aid programmes in middle-income countries whose funding from the Department will be changed as a result of the diversion of aid to the reconstruction of Iraq; and what assessment he has made of the impact of such changes on middle income countries. [135501]

  Hilary Benn
  Final decisions have yet to be taken on where reallocations will occur and I refer the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 4 November 2003,Official Report, columns 486W and 490W.

  Aid Provision
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid the UK gave to each of the five poorest nations in each of the last five years. [136189]

  Hilary Benn
  The five poorest nations have been identified as those with the lowest GNI per capita. This is calculated by dividing the Gross National Income by the mid year population. GNI per capita in US dollars is converted using the World Bank Atlas method.

  UK bilateral assistance (£000) to five poorest nations

  Poorest nations based on GNI per capita

  GNI per capita (US$)

  Total Gross Public Expenditure 2002–03 (£000)

  Democratic Republic of Congo

  80

  15,586

  Ethiopia

  100

  44,240

  Burundi

  100

  1,934

  Liberia

  140

  1,738

  Sierra Leone

  140

  32,761

  Source:

  SID 2003 Edition Tables 1.8 and 7.1.

  The UK also gives assistance to these countries via our multilateral contributions.

  AIDS
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with governments of countries affected by AIDS, concerning the future impact of AIDS on public services and stability of their society. [136217]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  HIV/AIDS is a human catastrophe and a significant development challenge. This is acknowledged by many governments and it is frequently discussed in meetings the Department for International Development has with partner countries. The issue is also discussed in a range of regional and international fora.

  HIV/AIDS is not just a health problem. It requires a response that addresses public services like education, livelihoods and food security, access to justice and security. In Malawi for example DFID is working with other donors and the Malawian Government to ensure that the Poverty Reduction Strategies addresses the impact of HIV/AIDS on all public services. In education, DFID is currently working with the UNAIDS Interagency Task Team for Education and HIV/AIDS to promote high level understanding and leadership, and strengthen the technical capacity of developing countries to develop and implement effective education responses to the epidemic.

  AIDS Orphans
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate he has made of the number of AIDS orphans there are, broken down by country. [136203]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  We expect the very latest statistics on orphans to be published in a report by UNICEF, "Africa's Orphaned Generations", on 23 November 2003. Until then the international community, including DFID, has drawn on the joint UNAIDS, UNICEF, USAID Report, "Children on the Brink 2002", which provides statistics on current and projected numbers of children orphaned by HIV/AIDS in 88 countries.

  "Children on the Brink 2002" estimates that 13.4 million children under the age of 15 had lost one or both parents to AIDS in 2001. 11 million of these children are in sub-Saharan Africa. By 2010, this number is expected to rise to 25 million, with probable large increases in Asia. In the hardest hit countries, it is estimated that 15 per cent. of all children will be orphaned by AIDS by 2005.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions he has had with other donor countries and NGOs concerning AIDS orphans in developing countries. [136218]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  HIV/AIDS has created an unprecedented orphan crisis. By 2001 13.4 million children had lost one or both parents to AIDS. The growing impacts of HIV/AIDS on children, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have strong implications for the achievement of all development goals. Co-ordinating and harmonising the response to this crisis is a key challenge for the international community.
  810W
  In June 2001, DFID joined the rest of the international community at the United Nations General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) on HIV/AIDS in adopting the Declaration of Commitment which set common targets for reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS and alleviating its impact. The Declaration includes three strong commitments to provide special assistance to children orphaned and affected by HIV/AIDS.

  DFID is now working with UNAIDS and UNICEF, who are co-ordinating other development agencies and NGOs to develop a Global Strategic Framework to translate the UNGASS Declaration into country level action and commitment. Other governments engaged in this process include the US, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, and Denmark. Emphasis is placed on the need to strengthen community-based care of orphans and ensure that they stay in school.

  At the country level, we are in dialogue with governments and development partners to ensure that national responses to the epidemic include appropriate provision for the education, health, nutrition and housing needs of orphaned as well as their protection from abuse and exploitation. In Uganda, we have supported the Government in the implementation of free universal primary education. Prior to the introduction of the free Universal Primary Education policy, 12 per cent. fewer orphans were attending school compared to non-orphans. In 2000 this had diminished to 4 per cent. as a result of free primary education. In Malawi we are working with other donors and the Government of Malawi to ensure that the needs of orphans and vulnerable children are addressed through the Poverty Reduction Strategy processes.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what response his Department is making to the UNICEF and UNAIDS announcement of a co-ordinated global response to AIDS orphans. [136277]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  HIV/AIDS has created an unprecedented orphan crisis. By 2001 13.4 million children had lost one or both parents to AIDS. The growing impacts of HIV/AIDS on children, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, have strong implications for the achievement of all development goals. Coordinating and harmonising the response to this crisis is a key challenge for the international community.

  In October of this year, DFID joined other major international partners to develop a global strategic framework for the protection, care and support of orphans and other children made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS (OVC). The framework will highlight key issues in an effective response to the needs of OVC. We fully endorses the draft framework's emphasis on free primary education and strengthened support to community-based care for OVC within the context of a broad multi-sectoral national HIV/AIDS strategy. We continue to emphasise the importance of embedding responses to the orphan crisis in national level mechanisms such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy processes, and the urgency of providing treatment programmes to prolong the lives of HIV+ parents.

  AIDS/TB/Malaria
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the United Kingdom's contribution will be to the Global Fund for combating AIDS, TB and malaria in each year up to 2008 for this year. [136046]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK recognises that in order to be effective the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria (GFATM) needs predictable and sustainable financing. The UK recently extended its pledge by a further two years to 2008 bringing our total contribution to approximately US$280million.

  The pattern of our disbursements has been agreed with the Global Fund Secretariat—for the financial year 2002–03, the UK provided £50 million in two separate payments of £25 million, in 2003–04 the UK provided £25 million, in 2004–05 we will provide £30 million, and in 2005–06 we will provide £33 million. In the years 2006–07 and 2007–08 we have pledged US$40 million per year.

  UK funding is subject to the GFATM reflecting a clear poverty focus, achieving a better financing system, integrating the Fund's activities more effectively with national programmes and meeting agreed benchmarks to monitor its effectiveness. Good progress was made at the recent 6th Board meeting in Thailand on many of these issues.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support and advice is being provided to the interim government of the Democratic Republic of Congo. [136343]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government have recently informed the Transitional National Government (TNG) of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and made public, a significant stepping up of its engagement with the DRC, following the installation of the TNG this summer. This year, our programme will amount to £23 million.

  Ensuring a successful transition process, including embedding the TNG, is crucial to our overall goal of ensuring peace and poverty reduction in the DRC and through that, the region as a whole. As a member of the International Committee for Support to the Transition, we are pressing for a well developed and shared understanding between donors and government of the Transition Process and of the varied challenges and milestones that the process will entail, as well as strong day-to-day co-ordination of their support efforts.

  We are providing £700,000 in direct support for the basic infrastructure needs of the Transition Institutions, which include the President and four Vice Presidents, Government, Parliament, Senate, Supreme Court and the five Democracy Support Commissions (Elections, Human Rights, Truth and Reconciliation, Anti-Corruption and Media). We are considering technical assistance for the drawing up of a national Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR) strategy, a Security Sector Reform (SSR) strategy and a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper
  812W
  (PRSP). We are also looking at providing some civil service capacity building support to the Government with UNDP and other donors.

  It is crucial for DRC and the wider Great Lakes region that the transition process remains on track. We will therefore make continued efforts to strengthen and consolidate peace, which include humanitarian work, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants, army, police and justice sector reform, and grassroots peace-building work.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts are being made to ensure that the forthcoming elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo will be free and fair. [136346]

  Hilary Benn
  We believe that national elections are a key part of the transition period under way in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and an important challenge for the new Transitional National Government (TNG). This will require not only support from donors but also strong and effective engagement by civil society and a free and responsible media.

  We are currently providing £700,000 in direct support for the basic infrastructure needs of the Transition Institutions, which include the President and four Vice Presidents, Government, Parliament, Senate, Supreme Court and the five Democracy Support Commissions, including the Independent Electoral Commission. When the financial needs of the electoral process become clearer, we will consider what further support we might give. With other donors and the TNG, we are looking at how we can provide core funding for all five Democracy Support Commissions (Elections, Human Rights, Anti-Corruption, Media and Truth and Reconciliation). We are promoting donor coordination and harmonisation to ensure an effective approach towards all aspects of holding free and fair elections.

  Media pluralism is critical for encouraging and supporting political pluralism. We are therefore providing support to the media sector not only as above through the Media Commission, but also: through £500,000 funding to Panos Paris, an NGO who are working to build capacity and strengthen the media sector to improve access to, and quality of information; and over £1 million through Foundation Hirondelle to support Radio Okapi, the UN linked radio station which broadcasts good quality news and peace messages and will play an important part in the elections.

  Finally, free and fair elections will not happen unless the transition process remains on track. We will, therefore make continued efforts to strengthen and consolidate peace, which include humanitarian work, disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration of ex-combatants, army, police and justice sector reform, and grassroots peace-building work.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the report by a UN commission on the misuse of the Democratic Republic of Congo's natural resources. [136347]
  813W
  Hilary Benn
  I am currently considering the Final Report of the UN Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo and I shall write to the hon. Lady as soon as possible.

  Developing Countries (Property Ownership)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to his answer of 16 September 2003,Official Report, column 653W, on developing countries (property ownership), what resources his Department is allocating to deal with these problems. [136179]

  Hilary Benn
  In my earlier responses to my hon. Friend I outlined DFID's assessment of and engagement in property ownership issues. DFID has currently over £575.4 million in approved project and programme commitments dealing with these issues in both urban and rural areas in developing countries.

  In urban areas, £160.7 million has been committed by DFID to this issue. This includes programmes and projects relating property ownership issues to urban management, urbanisation policy and shelter and tenure.

  In the rural sector DFID has currently committed £412.6 million to programmes and projects dealing with land policy.

  In other sectors (Governance, Human Rights, Social Protection, Local Government Reform) DFID currently has £2.1 million committed.

  In addition DFID has the services of a Land Policy Adviser.

  Iraq
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what poverty impact assessments have been undertaken on the impact of redirection of funds from middle income countries to the reconstruction of Iraq; and if he will make a statement; [135253]

  (2) what programmes will be ended prematurely owing to the redirection of funds away from middle income countries to the reconstruction of Iraq. [135252]

  Hilary Benn
  Final decisions have yet to be taken on where reallocations will occur and I refer the hon. Member for Blaby to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 4 November 2003,Official Report, columns 486W and 490W.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what resources are being diverted from his Department's budgets to Iraq; which other countries are affected: and if he will make a statement. [135262]

  Hilary Benn
  Final decisions have yet to be taken on where reallocations will occur and I refer my hon. Friend to the to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 4 November 2003,Official Report, columns 486–90W.
  814W
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the money allocated to aid reconstruction in Iraq has been transferred from other aid programmes. [135497]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member for the City of Durham to the answers I gave the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) on 4 November 2003,Official Report, columns 486W and 490W.

  Maternal Mortality
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking to meet the Millennium Development Goal to reduce the level of maternal mortality among mothers in childbirth in developing countries, with particular reference to Africa. [136278]

  Hilary Benn
  The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are central to DFID's work, including the goal to improve maternal health, and its associated target of reducing the maternal mortality ratio (the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) by 75 per cent. between 1990 and 2015. Our Public Service Agreement includes ambitious targets on increasing access in Africa and Asia to skilled attendance at childbirth. Skilled attendance is an important contributor to safe childbirth and serves as an internationally agreed proxy indicator of progress towards the maternal health MDG, trends in maternal mortality being notoriously difficult to assess directly. DFID's strategy includes advocacy in the international arena, support to countries to strengthen health systems and improve access to maternal and reproductive health services, and support for research and improved measurement tools. DFID is participating in a new international partnership for Safe Motherhood and Newborn Health.

  Sub-Saharan Africa bears a disproportionate burden of maternal mortality. In 2000, there were approximately 247,000 maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa, almost half the 529,000 deaths worldwide. We support the maternal health strategies of African countries through health sector budget support, through safe motherhood projects, for example in Kenya and Malawi, and indirectly through general budget support. Since 1997 we have committed approximately £0.5 billion to health systems strengthening in Africa. We also fund international multilateral agencies and international NGOs active in supporting maternal health programmes in Africa.

  Tanzania
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what reports he has received on food security in Tanzania; and if he will make a statement. [136620]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Tanzania has submitted reports to development partners on food security and the distribution of around 16,000 MT of subsidised food from their Strategic Grain Reserve. I have been receiving further updates on the situation from the DFID office in Dar es Salaam. WFP approved an Emergency Operation on 20 October to provide additional assistance to drought affected persons. DFID is considering its response to this appeal.

  Zimbabwe
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the closure of the regional hospital in the Matabeleland South province of Zimbabwe. [136274]

  Hilary Benn
  Shangani hospital serves a population in Matabeleland South Province that includes about 12,500 newly resettled families in a former commercial farming area.

  At the end of September 2003, Shangani hospital announced that it had ceased to admit patients because it had run out of food. This occurred despite Government of Zimbabwe policy that all hospitals and other key institutions have priority for access to food supplied by the Grain Marketing Board, which is a parastatal. In response, the chair of the Provincial Food Task Force promised to provide food to the hospital on an emergency basis and to undertake an investigation into the situation.

  Shangani hospital is now operating again, although shortages of food, ambulances and fuel persist.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the interruptions to the water supply in Harare, Zimbabwe. [136275]

  Hilary Benn
  Several cities and towns of Zimbabwe are being affected by the interruption of their water supplies to varying degrees. The lack of provision of foreign exchange by the central government imposes a serious constraint on local government's capacity to purchase water treatment chemicals. In addition, the country is coming towards the end of the dry season resulting in very low levels in the main reservoirs.

  It is hoped the recent rains will have helped the situation, as well as the anticipation of normal rainfall this year. The Harare city council so far is managing to ensure clean water supplies to Harare, and has begun to receive some support to import chemicals from donors following a request through the United Nations. There has recently been a general improvement in supplies as the city council took active action to deal with the situation including a hosepipe ban.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the trends in(a) poppy cultivation and (b) the heroin trade in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement on its impact on the country's stability. [135847]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today (UIN135856).

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with(a) the UN, (b) international partners and (c) farmers in Afghanistan regarding the
  816W
  measures which need to be taken to meet the target set in the 2002 Spending Review to contribute to the reduction of opium production in Afghanistan. [136536]

  Mr. Straw
  We are working closely with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to support the Afghan government in achieving its target of eliminating opium within 10 years. We also consult regularly with other key donors, as this is not something we can achieve on our own. We are organising an international conference, co-hosted with the Afghan Government and UNODC that will take place in Kabul in February 2004 with the aim of encouraging wider international community support. The UK also provided financial and human resources to the latest UNODC Farmers Intentions Study. This has helped us to ascertain the best methods of ensuring that Afghan farmers cease to grow opium poppy and pursue alternative livelihoods.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to meet the target set in the 2002 Spending Review to contribute to the reduction of opium production in Afghanistan; and what estimate he has made of changes to the size of the opium harvest in Afghanistan in each of the next three years. [136537]

  Mr. Straw
  The Afghan Transitional Authority (ATA) adopted its National Drug Control Strategy on 19 May 2003. Its objective is to reduce opium poppy cultivation by 70 per cent. in five years and by 100 per cent. in 10 years. The UK is committed to helping the ATA achieve this objective and has prepared a balanced programme of counter-narcotics activity to support implementation of the Afghan strategy. We have committed £70 million over three years and additional personnel are currently being posted to Afghanistan. It is difficult to assess expected cultivation levels in each year but we do not expect progress to be linear. Experience of counter-narcotics policies in other countries, such as Thailand and Pakistan, shows that cultivation tends to increase before declining. Cultivation also tends to move from traditional areas to more marginal and inaccessible areas to protect crops against law enforcement activity. Progress in the initial years of assistance towards reducing opium levels will also be dependent upon wider improvements in security and governance.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime on poppy production in Afghanistan. [136621]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Ministerial Statement I made on 30 October 2003,Official Report, column 2OWS, regarding the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) survey results for the 2003 opium poppy crop in Afghanistan.

  Azerbaijan
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Azeri Government since the election of
  817W
  Ilham Aliev as President regarding(a) the conduct of the recent elections in Azerbaijan and (b) arrests of opposition supporters. [136433]

  Mr. MacShane
  The EU issued a statement on 23 October expressing regret for the shortcomings in the electoral process in Azerbaijan, while acknowledging that it was an improvement over previous elections. In the two weeks following the elections, our ambassador to Azerbaijan met twice with President-elect Ilham Aliev, and on both occasions he raised the issue of the post election arrests of opposition party officials and journalists. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Rammell) expressed our concern about the post-electoral developments in a press release of 23 October. A copy of the press release is available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website: www.fco.gov.uk/policy/news/press-releases. Many of those detained have since been released. We will continue to closely monitor the situation and keep in close touch with our EU and OSCE (Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe) partners.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether the recent elections in Azerbaijan can be deemed to have been free and fair; and if he will make a statement. [136445]

  Mr. MacShane
  We acknowledge progress over previous elections in Azerbaijan, but regret that some shortcomings were observed. The International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) stated in its preliminary conclusions that voting was generally well administered in most polling stations, but that the overall election process still fell short of international standards in several respects. It is important that Azerbaijan takes steps to build on the progress it has made and to reaffirm its commitments in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and obligations within the Council of Europe to the democratic process. We await the IEOM's final assessment on the conduct of the elections.

  Burma
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to persuade the Thai Government to lift its restrictions on cross-border aid to internally displaced people in Burma and on refugees from Burma entering Thailand. [135573]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We believe that the Burmese regime's refusal to grant access to IDP areas is the biggest restriction on aid to internally displaced people in Burma. The Thai authorities have a long record of providing safe haven for those fleeing persecution by the Burmese regime. With our EU colleagues, we regularly engage with the Thai authorities on this issue.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Thailand's roadmap for democracy in Burma. [135574]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK welcomes and is supportive of Thai efforts to encourage the Burmese military regime to enter into substantive genuine 818W
  dialogue with democratic and ethnic minority leaders in Burma leading to national reconciliation. We believe that Thailand's proposal forms a good basis on which to build from.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the issue of the Burmese Government's atrocities against the Karen, Karenni and Shan people at the UN Security Council. [135575]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government are encouraging all the appropriate bodies of the UN to tackle the issue of helping bring about national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma. Should Burma feature on the UN Security Council agenda, the Government would ensure that the plight of Burma's ethnic groups was taken fully into account.

  We regularly raise Burma, including the plight of Burma's ethnic groups, bilaterally with our Security Council partners, but there is currently no agreement that Burma should be discussed by the Security Council.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account the Government takes of the Burmese Army's atrocities against the(a) Karen, (b) Karenni and (c) Shan people in their decision-making; and what sanctions regime against Burma the Government will adopt. [135576]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Together with the international community, we recognise that the resolution of the ethnic nationality issue is an essential ingredient in any possible solution to Burma's problems. The disproportionate violation of human rights suffered by ethnic groups has been highlighted by successive UN resolutions and were included in the European Union Council Conclusions on Burma when the EU decided to strengthen the Common Position in April 2003. We are currently discussing with EU colleagues what additional measures we may take to encourage national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy in Burma.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government is taking to raise concerns with the Burmese regime regarding the Burmese military's deployment of land mines in(a) Karen, (b) Karenni and (c) Shan civilian areas; and if he will make a statement. [135791]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Continued fighting between the Burmese Army and armed ethnic groups, which includes the use of land mines by both sides, is the cause of on-going suffering among the ordinary people in these areas. Ethnic groups, including the Karen, Karenni, and Shan, suffer disproportionately.

  The UK co-sponsors resolutions in the UN General assembly (UNGA) and UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) condemning the military regime's actions against the ethnic groups.

  China
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government regarding the imprisonment of Phuntsog Nyidrol. [136431]
  819W
  Mr. Rammell
  Phuntsog Nyidrol was included on the list of individual cases of concern handed over to the Chinese authorities during my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to China in July. We have regularly raised her case in the context of the biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue, and have requested her release on medical grounds.

  Colombia
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the number of human rights violations, broken down by(a) murders, (b) kidnappings and (c) death threats each year in Colombia under the (i) Pastrana and (ii) Uribe administrations. [136309]

  Mr. Rammell
  We see many reports on the human rights situation in Colombia each year from nongovernmental organisations, international bodies and foreign governments. These reports have different methods of collating and presenting their data, so a consensus of figures of the particular categories mentioned by my hon. Friend is difficult to come by. Detailed reports are available on the following websites.UNHCHR http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFrame/1304674285b7eb3bcl256cf5003906fb?Opendocument
  US State Department http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18325.htm
  Amnesty International http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/col-summary-eng
  Human Rights Watch http://hrw.org/wr2k3/americas4.html

  The issues highlighted in these reports are of great concern to us. We raise these regularly with the Colombian Government. I recently did so when I met the Colombian Foreign Minister in New York on 23 September. We will continue to work closely with the Colombian Government, EU partners and others to tackle the problems.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving to the Colombian Government on human rights issues. [136561]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our human rights assistance for Colombia addresses the key problems of violence, displacement, children's and women's rights, impunity and the guarantee of fundamental human rights freedoms. Projects include provision of human rights training for the Colombian armed forces; encouraging greater attention to the rights of displaced women, adolescents and girls; strengthening Colombian NGOs; rehabilitation of child soldiers; helping street children out of their negative environment; provision of political and financial support to the work of the UNHCHR office in Bogota and to the Special Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on Colombia. We also contribute to the EU's programme of assistance of Euro 330 million over the period 2001–06 (which includes assistance on human rights).

  EU Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the 820W
  non-institutional matters which he submitted to the Italian Presidency by 20 October for raising at the Intergovernmental Conference. [135377]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government's letter to the Presidency on non-institutional issues for discussion in the Inter-governmental Conference raised the following issues: aspects of Justice and Home Affairs, the status of the Charter of Fundamental Rights; economic governance and the budget; defence; and the scope of qualified majority voting and co-decision. The Government's White Paper sets out our position on these questions in detail.

  Immigration (Chagos Islanders)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with West Sussex county council about provision for permanent settlement of Chagos Islanders arriving at Gatwick airport. [134756]

  Mr. Rammell
  My officials have been in contact with West Sussex county council and following this, officials in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health are considering, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the situation of the destitute Chagossians in the UK.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made for the settlement of Chagos Islanders in the UK. [134792]

  Mr. Rammell
  Officials in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health are considering, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the situation of the destitute Chagossians in the UK. No final decisions on any measures can be taken until the judicial review proceedings are completed.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the Government have had with the US Administration regarding foreign nationals entering Iraq to participate in terrorist activities; and what assessment his Department has made of the number of foreign terrorists in Iraq. [135945]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Rammell) today (UIN136351). I am withholding details of the Government's estimate of the number of foreign terrorists in Iraq under exemptions 1 and 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government is taking to prevent foreign terrorists coming into possession of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; and what discussions the Government have had with international partners on this matter. [135946]

  Mr. Straw
  Coalition forces regularly conduct antiterrorist operations, and the UK and US Governments have urged Iraq's neighbours to tighten up border
  821W
  security and border controls to deny terrorists access to Iraq. Coalition forces and the Iraq Survey Group continue to search for and secure WMD-related sites and materials.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of external support from governments in countries surrounding Iraq for individuals and organisations carrying out terrorist activities in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [135966]

  Mr. Straw
  We have received a range of reports about possible support from individuals and organisations from within Iraq's neighbours for terrorist activity in Iraq. The Government have urged Iraq's neighbours to tighten up security and border controls to deny terrorists access to Iraq.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of the US Administration on possible foreign involvement in attacks in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [136351]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary regularly discusses Iraq issues with US Secretary of State Colin Powell. The Government have urged Iraq's neighbours to tighten up security and border controls to deny terrorists access to Iraq.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 5 November 2003,Official Report, column 663W, what assessment he has made of whether the steps taken by the Government of Pakistan support a conclusion that the Government of Pakistan are not a sponsor of terrorism. [135648]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcome the steps, which the Government of Pakistan have taken and is continuing to take against terrorist and extremist organisations. But we remain concerned that some such groups are still operating within and from Pakistan. We continue to urge the Government of Pakistan to do more to prevent all forms of terrorist activity.

  Paramilitary Groups
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) of 4 July 2003,Official Report, column 558W, what assessment he has made of the level of protection needed for trade unionists receiving death threats from paramilitary groups. [136353]

  Mr. Rammell
  I regularly make clear our great concern about the extremely difficult situation faced by trades unionists in Colombia. Protection is given under the Colombian Ministry of Interior Protection Programme. We welcome the recently increased spending on this programme, and the reactivation of Inter-Institutional Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Workers' Human Rights. Deaths of trades union members have been significantly reduced this year. But there is much more to be done and the Colombian Government has acknowledged this. It 822W
  supports and has played a large part in discussions on an EU funded project for the promotion and defence of the human rights of trades unionists. We will continue to emphasise the need for further protection of all vulnerable groups in Colombia.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of the Sudan on press freedom. [136090]

  Mr. Mullin
  Human rights in Sudan remains one of our priorities. We monitor the situation closely. Our embassy in Khartoum regularly lobbies the Government of Sudan on human rights, including on press freedom.

  Most recently the embassy raised the suspension of the daily newspapers the Khartoum Monitor, Al-Wan and Al-Azminah. I am pleased to be able to say that all three of these newspapers have now resumed printing. We will continue to maintain pressure on the Government of Sudan to improve its human rights record and will continue to raise human rights violations at every opportunity both bilaterally and as part of the EU/Sudan dialogue.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Sudan on the(a) death penalty and (b) use of torture. [136092]

  Mr. Mullin
  Human rights in Sudan remain one of our priorities. We monitor the situation closely. Our embassy in Khartoum regularly lobbies the Government of Sudan on human rights, and pays particular attention to cases involving the death penalty, corporal punishments and allegations of torture.

  The embassy continues to raise these issues both bilaterally and multilaterally as part of the recent EU Sudan dialogue. The last meeting of the EU Sudan dialogue was on 2 November 2003 which, among other issues, focused on press freedom and the application of "hudud" (amputations) punishments.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's role in the Sudan peace process. [136162]

  Mr. Mullin
  We continue to offer the parties and mediators our full support in their efforts to reach a comprehensive peace agreement, which we hope will be signed early in the New Year. During the break in the formal talks, due to resume on 30 November, we are encouraging the parties to maintain contact. In that respect, the UK Special Representative visited southern Sudan last week and had a useful meeting with the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM).

  We are supporting the peace process in other ways; by broadening our humanitarian assistance to include direct support for the peace process and for early rehabilitation and peace-building work; by providing funds and personnel to the Joint Monitoring Commission (JMC) in the Nuba Mountains and the Verification Monitoring Team in the south.
  823W
  We are discussing what support we can provide immediately following a peace agreement so that the Sudanese people can see early benefits of peace. Assisting Sudan in its progress towards peace continues to be a high priority.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to help bring about a lasting peace in Sudan. [136436]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) today (UIN136162).
  824W
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the release of political prisoners in Khartoum and Dafur, Sudan. [136091]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 23 October 2003,Official Report, column 713W.

  In Darfur, the release of prisoners affiliated to the Sudanese Liberation Movement was an encouraging sign in accordance with the Abeche cease-fire agreement. We continue to urge both parties to respect the cease-fire and support the political dialogue currently taking place in Abeche.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning Aid
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  Planning aid is the provision of free and independent professional advice on town planning to groups or individuals in need of such advice and who cannot obtain it without an aid service. It is currently funded by the Royal Town Planning Institute and by grants and donations from public, private and charitable organisations but it is significantly under-resourced and stretched in respect of its current role. On 5 February 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister announced in "Sustainable communities: building for the future" that planning aid would receive up to £4 million of Government funding over the next three years to expand its service.

  The enabling legislation supporting wider Office of Deputy Prime Minister spending on planning aid is contained in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. The Bill received Second Reading on 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 729, and it was anticipated that Royal Assent would be received by September 2003. Funding for planning aid was expected to commence from 1 October 2003. However, as my hon. friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) explained during the carry-over debate on the Bill on 10 June 2003, Official Report, column 564, the likely timescale for Royal Assent is now March 2004.

  Planning aid needs to undergo a significant expansion programme to make it more proactive in engaging with communities who traditionally do not get involved in planning issues. The expansion programme is built on the findings of an Office of Deputy Prime Minister funded research study1 which concluded that there was a clear demand for an independent advisory service, but that planning aid was currently running almost permanently at close to breaking point. Delay in funding planning aid until March would severely undermine the good progress being made in this area.

  An advance from the contingencies fund is being made available. Without the advance planning aid would be very likely to suffer the loss of key staff and volunteers, fracturing the current regional network. This, along with the loss of momentum brought about by the implementation programme, would set back plans to develop planning aid to a point where it might be difficult for it to recover for some time, even after funding became available.

  1"planning aid: A review of its role and propects for development", ODPM, February 2003.
  40WS
  Parliamentary approval for additional resources for this new service will be sought in a later Estimate for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £554,000 will be met by repayable advances from the contingency fund.

  Planning Obligations (Consultation Document)
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  In December 2001 the Government published a consultation paper proposing that local authorities should set standardised tariffs for different types of development as a substitute for the negotiated planning obligations permitted by section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In July 2002 the Government indicated that they had decided not to proceed with this proposal and would consider other options. They also indicated that many of the Government's objectives could be achieved through non-legislative routes.

  Today I am publishing a further consultation document seeking views on firm proposals for the reform of planning obligations. These proposals contain a mixture of administrative and legislative reforms and are designed to increase the speed, certainty and transparency of the planning obligations while retaining flexibility.

  New development brings benefits to communities, including homes, jobs, and a range of new services and facilities. Investment in land and property is also an important component of economic growth and higher productivity.

  New development can also have an impact on services and infrastructure in the local area. The existing system of planning obligations permits planning authorities to seek contributions from developers, which are used to mitigate negative impacts. They therefore facilitate development, which might otherwise not occur. So planning obligations help the developer, the community and the local authority to work together to deliver successful and sustainable communities.

  However, the current system of negotiating planning obligations is often slow, resource intensive and lacks transparency. Development is often delayed rather than facilitated by the process.

  The Government have therefore decided to introduce changes designed to give developers the choice between the current negotiated approach offering flexibility and a pre-determined charge, which offers speed and certainty. We will legislate within the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to introduce this new optional charge. We will also revise our existing statement of policy on planning obligations, Circular 1/97, to remove the inconsistency which the policy exhibits compared to case law, to require greater transparency in the use of negotiated obligations, to encourage best practice and to set out our policy in relation to the new charge.

  Local planning authorities would be required to set out their charge proposals in advance, giving the developer certainty as to the level of the contribution they will be asked to make and an indication of the impacts of development to which charge income will be

  41WS
  applied. This requirement will also mean that assessing and mitigating the impact of development will become a plan-led activity. If developers opt to pay the charge, we propose that legislation would prevent local planning authorities from seeking any further financial or in-kind contribution in respect of those matters covered by the charge. Our consultation document invites views on the matters that would be covered. However, planning obligations can extend to non-financial matters as well and we expect that where the charge is paid, a residual negotiation may have to take place. But we are determined to ensure that our final proposals do not ask developers to pay twice.

  The developer will always have the option not to pay the charge and to negotiate in the same way as the present system allows. For example, negotiation might still be necessary for difficult, financially marginal or special cases where a negotiation can better mould the agreement to the proposed development. We propose that our new policy will require all local planning authorities to adopt existing best practice and set out the matters to be covered in negotiation in local planning instruments. So transparency and predictability will be increased even where the developer opts not to pay the charge.

  We propose to amend the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill to enable us to make these reforms. These amendments will provide a power to establish the new optional charge but we intend to use secondary legislation to set out the detailed framework. This secondary legislation will be informed by the outcome of the consultation, an approach that will enable business, local government and other stakeholders to contribute to the development of the new system. To aid this further, I aim to publish draft Regulations in January and in spring 2004 we will also consult on a new draft Circular to replace Circular 1/97.

  The consultation period runs until 8 January 2004 and we welcome views on how best to make our proposals work for everyone involved in securing sustainable communities: developers, local authorities and the communities they serve.

  The Government appointed Kate Barker earlier this year to investigate factors affecting the supply of housing, including the role of the planning system. The Government will consider any relevant recommendations of the Barker review before it finalises its planning obligations policy in summer 2004. Representations already made to the Barker review on the subject of planning obligations will be taken into account as the Government finalise their policy.

  In conclusion, the Government believe that the proposals offer an opportunity to resolve this difficult area of policy in a way, which retains flexibility where necessary and offers speed and certainty where possible.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  I have previously indicated that changes would be made to planned future programme 42WS
  allocations for middle-income countries over the next two years. This results from decisions taken on financing for Iraq and the Government's commitment to increase the proportion of our direct assistance going to the poorest countries.

  As reported in the Department's 2003 Annual Report, we are planning to increase significantly total bilateral allocations for DFID's country and regional programmes over the next two years from this year's estimated total of £1.429 billion to £1.762 billion in 2004–05 and £2.078 billion in 2005–06. This includes meeting the Prime Minister's commitment to increase our spending for Africa to £1 billion annually by 2005–06 and increasing our spending in Asia by some 45 per cent. to nearly £800 million by the same year.Overall, the UK's aid budget will grow to nearly £4.6 billion by 2005–06, an average annual increase over the 2002 spending review period of 8.1 per cent. in real terms. The UK's level of Official Development Assistance is set to reach 0.4 per cent. of national income by 2005–06—a 93 per cent. increase in real terms since 1997. This is evidence of this Government's continued commitment to make progress towards meeting the UN target of an ODA/GNI ratio of 0.7 per cent.

  As set out in the 2003 Departmental report, responding to changes in circumstances is an integral part of DFID's work, and financial allocations for future years are subject to change. We had already planned to reduce the overall allocation to middle-income countries in order to allow an increase in spending on the poorest countries.

  Over the next two years, funding for the reconstruction of Iraq includes £50 million reallocated from planned programmes, together with DFID contingency funding of £115 million and contributions from other Government Departments. Our Public Service Agreement includes the commitment to increase the share of our bilateral programme going to low-income countries to 90 per cent. by 2005–06 As a consequence of the temporary increase in funding for Iraq, which we expect to return to middle-income status soon, we will also need to move a further estimated £ 50 million from middle-income country programmes to low-income country programmes. This is in line with our commitment to the 90 per cent. target.

  The total effect of these changes will be a reduction in planned bilateral spending in middle-income countries in 2004–05 and 2005–06 of around £100 million. Funding for programmes in middle-income countries during the current financial year will not be affected. Our budget for humanitarian activities will remain as planned.

  We will continue to provide substantial support to middle-income countries through our contributions to multilateral institutions. In 2001–02 this amounted to some £600 million, of which some £350 million was for middle-income developing countries; and the rest was for middle-income countries in transition.

  These changes in planned bilateral allocations will involve withdrawal from programmes, earlier than we had previously decided, from a number of middle-income countries, which are less dependent on UK bilateral aid. Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Egypt

  43WS
  are in this category. Our planned programme in Jordan will be re-phased.Our current programmes in Anguilla and TCI will now close in 2004–05, a year earlier than originally planned.

  We will be continuing with our bilateral programmes, with some reduction in spending levels and in some cases an adjustment of focus in the following countries/ regions: South Africa, China, Sri Lanka, Russia, Jamaica, Guyana, Brazil, Bolivia, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia, Albania, Kosovo and the Caribbean. Our small programme in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will close by 2005–06, as will the small programmes in Peru and Honduras. We will be developing a new approach to regional involvement in Latin America. Our programmes in the Palestinian Authority, Montserrat and St Helena will remain unaffected; and we will retain a programme in Nicaragua.

  I also propose to increase, from 2005–06,our partnership funding for NGOs, including those working with middle-income countries and Latin America.

  My officials are in touch with all of the countries affected by these changes in plans. We are also talking to the multilateral agencies and some other bilateral donors about the scope for increasing our cooperation with them. This will be reflected in the new middle-income country strategy that the Department is preparing in consultation with other Departments in Whitehall. I shall report further to the House on the impact on individual country programmes once these discussions are complete.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Diversity of the Magistracy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  At the beginning of October, the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor published a national strategy for recruitment to the magistracy, setting out my Department's plans to increase the number of appointments as a justice of the peace, and to encourage applications from people with a wider range of backgrounds. In furtherance of the national strategy, the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor is now amending his directions to the Committees, which advise him on magisterial appointments. The Committees are asked to achieve a bench that is broadly representative of the community which they serve. Following advice from royal commissions in 1910 and 1948, political association has hitherto been used as an indicator of social class in seeking to achieve that balance. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the way people vote is no longer a reliable guide to social perspective and standing. Therefore a new system is being introduced; applicants will identify themselves against occupational and industrial groupings, based on standard classifications used by the Office for National Statistics. The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor is also telling the Committees that there need be no lower age limit for applicants who can show that they have the key qualities needed for appointment. Copies of the national strategy document 44WS
  and of the new application form, which sets out the occupational groupings categories, have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Future Command Liasion Vehicle
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence has today signed a contract worth £166 million (including VAT) with Alvis Vickers Ltd, for the manufacture of the future command and liaison vehicle (FCLV).

  On 17 July we announced that the FCLV would be deployed with the RAF regiment and that the contract value would be worth over £200 million. Ongoing work on armoured fighting vehicle rationalisation has led to a review of the initial requirement for vehicles. Consequently, we have revised the size of the initial procurement of FCLV whilst retaining the option to procure additional FCLV at a later date. The RAF regiment will no longer receive vehicles from the initial fleet of FCLV and the contract value of the initial work has been revised.

  The FCLV will perform the command and liaison role and replace the ageing and disparate vehicle fleet within the manoeuvre support brigades comprising elements of the 430 series, Saxon, Land Rover and combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked) fleets. From its planned in-service date of 2006, the FCLV will provide levels of crew protection and mobility commensurate with their roles in an increasingly extended ground manoeuvre area. It will offer protection against small arms, blast and anti-personnel mines. Those in the direct fire zone will contain a self-defence weapon (SDW) that can be operated under armour to provide suppressive fire and surveillance and target acquisition (STA) system will be provided to enhance situational awareness, reconnaissance, targeting and reporting. The vehicle has been selected to deliver the solution to the armed forces requirement for enhanced speed, reliability, flexibility and protection for a wide range of users in combat or peacekeeping operations.

  The award of this contract to Alvis Vickers Ltd is excellent news for both our Armed Forces and the defence industry. It will sustain approximately 35 highly skilled jobs at the Alvis Vickers Ltd facility at Telford, and a further 25 within other UK companies. This is the culmination of work conducted by both the MOD and industry, and is a good example of the principles of smart acquisition being put into practice. It is incumbent on the MOD and industry to work together to ensure that our armed forces have access to the right equipment, in the right quantities, at the right time and at the right price.

  Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency Targets (2003–04)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The role of the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence agency is to provide imagery intelligence and geographic support to defence policy, operations and training; to meet customer requirements
  45WS
  for imagery intelligence and geographic support in accordance with defence priorities; to maintain and develop agency capabilities and readiness in line with future defence requirements; and to become progressively more efficient, whilst improving the quality and delivery of its products and services. The key targets for the agency for the 12 months from April 2003 are:

  KEY TARGET 1A—OPERATIONAL IMINT PROVISION
  To satisfy operational requirements for Imagery Intelligence within timescales and to standards agreed between the Agency and its customers, by satisfying at least 95 per cent. of requirements overall, whilst delivering not less than 98 per cent. of priority one tasks.

  KEY TARGET 1B—OPERATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SUPPORT
  To satisfy operational requirements for geographic support within timescales and to standards agreed between the agency and its customers, by satisfying 100 per cent. of the geographic products and services essential to support current and potential operations, both from the agency's UK based operation and its deployable units.

  KEY TARGET 2—READINESS
  To achieve the required levels of operational readiness in line with defence planning assumptions, whilst continuing to satisfy those deployable element outputs required under Key Target 1, maintaining agreed states of readiness as set by PJHQ for all contingency forces.

  KEY TARGET 3A—STRATEGIC AND CONTINGENCY IMINT PROVISION
  To satisfy strategic and contingency requirements for Imagery Intelligence within timescales and to standards agreed between the agency and its customers, by providing at least 57 per cent. of the requirements as set out in the imagery exploitation programme (HEP), while delivering not less than 92 per cent. of priority one tasks.

  KEY TARGET 3B— STRATEGIC AND CONTINGENCY GEOGRAPHIC SUPPORT
  To satisfy strategic and contingency requirements for geographic support within timescales and to standards agreed between the agency and its customers, completing at least 90 per cent. of a customer endorsed programme of work for geographic products and services.

  KEY TARGET 3T (TRANSITIONAL)—MEASUREMENT OF GEOSPATIAL PROVISION
  To develop improved mechanisms for the measurement of geospatial provision which enable effective evaluation of output efficiency. Definition of output measurement mechanisms for geospatial provision which enable a baseline for output efficiency to be quantified during FY 04–05.

  KEY TARGET 4— IMPROVEMENT IN GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION HOLDINGS
  To demonstrate a further 1 per cent. improvement in the coverage of geographic information holdings resulting in at least a cumulative 4 per cent. improvement on the baseline established in 1999, and to ensure that the quality of the collection achieves the level of readiness agreed with customers. This will be demonstrated by maintaining the
  46WS
  MOD map library collection at the agreed level of readiness and achieving a further 1 per cent. improvement in coverage of geographic information holdings.

  KEY TARGET 5T (TRANSITIONAL)—OUTPUT EFFICIENCY
  To define mechanisms for the measurement of output efficiency thatencompass all key areas of agency business, which will enable a baseline for output efficiency to be quantified during FY 04–05.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency Targets (2003–04)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence(Mr. Adam Ingram)
  DISC is the centre for defence intelligence training in the UK. CE DISC is responsible for training authorised personnel in intelligence, security and information support disciplines and maintaining an operational capability. The key targets for the agency for the 12 months from April 2003 are:

  KEY TARGET 1— TRAINING QUANTITY
  To deliver, within the resources available, the quantity of training places agreed with sponsors through the statement of training requirement (SOTR) process, and as endorsed by the customer executive board (CEB) and owner's advisory board (OAB).

  KEY TARGET 2— TRAINING QUALITY
  To set up a new process by which DISC can measure its training output in terms of quality.

  KEY TARGET 3— EFFICIENCY
  To reduce the current cost in real terms of delivering the average training place made available and to reduce the average cost of a man training day (MTD) successfully completed in financial year (FY) 2003–04.

  KEY TARGET 4— OPERATIONS
  To satisfy the operational tasking of the defence debriefing team (DOT) and the field HUMINT team (FHT).

TREASURY

  UK Dividends(Taxation Changes)
  The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo)
  Legislation to block potential tax avoidance by individuals using transactions in UK equities is to be included in Finance Bill 2004. The changes will have immediate effect

  The legislation closes a loophole resulting from a mismatch in the rules for taxing UK dividends and making "manufactured" payments under a sale and repurchase (repo) or stock lending arrangement. These schemes enable individuals to obtain an unintended tax windfall by using repos or stock loans to manufacture a dividend payment. The new provisions will apply to dividends received and manufactured dividends paid on or after today.

  A copy of today's Inland Revenue news release giving the relevant background to this measure has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and is accessible on the Inland Revenue's website at http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
Report received.
Clause 1 [NHS foundation trusts]:
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 1.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 97.
From the very start of our debates at Second Reading I have made clear not only my doubt about the supposed benefits of foundation trusts as envisaged in this Bill but also, and more importantly, my deep disquiet about their adverse consequences—consequences which I believe are inevitable. If our disagreement with the Government amounted just to a difference of opinion on whether or not the freedoms on offer to foundation trusts are really as significant as Ministers maintain they will be, frankly we on these Benches would feel that we had done our duty simply by explaining our point of view, but because we believe that these proposals carry profound dangers for the NHS itself we are into a much more serious realm of disagreement.
One of the main advantages of all those marathon sessions in Committee was that, by taking our time in examining the minutiae of the Bill, we were able to tease out its underlying implications quite successfully. Certainly one or two spectres were banished and that was helpful, but on the whole our exploration of Part 1 served only to confirm the worries that we entertained previously, and, I may say, to add a few more to the list.
We do not argue with the core case far foundation trusts. The case for foundation status is that by being freed up from the dead hand of central control hospitals will become more entrepreneurial and creative and thus more responsive to the needs of patients. The problem with that simple concept is that since it started out on its journey various people in high places have thought twice about it and the plan for its implementation has been successively diluted and devalued.
If as a chief executive you are subject to a legal lock on your hospital's assets and a cap on the amount of private income you can earn and a regulator who tells you how much you are allowed or not allowed to borrow, it does not seem to me that you have much scope in which to be creative and entrepreneurial. If on top of that you are subject to national pay agreements
912
and unable to develop your own IT systems in the way that suits your own hospital's needs, you will start to wonder what managerial flexibility is really available to you. If you are then told by the regulator what clinical services you have to provide in your hospital, what services you may not provide and what programmes of research you have to conduct, you might be forgiven for questioning whether the entire game is worth the candle.
If freedoms are being granted to a publicly funded system of healthcare, I for one do not have a problem with the idea of an independent regulator. Where I do have a problem is with a regulator who is constrained in almost every move he makes by his relationship with the Secretary of State. He owes his appointment to the Secretary of State; he is financially dependent on him; and in a very real legal sense, he must walk in the Secretary of State's shoes.
I described the duties in Clause 3 as a back-door power of direction over foundation trusts by the Secretary of State. Although the Minister took issue with that description, I do not think that it is very wide of the mark. Not even the business of authorising new foundation trusts is in the regulator's sole gift. We have what my noble friend Lord Peyton so aptly refers to as the double banking arrangement whereby all applications for foundation status first have to meet with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's presence runs through this part of the Bill like the message in a stick of rock. For foundation trusts the main problem with this arrangement is not just its scope for prescriptiveness from the centre but its lack of equity. If they look around for a route of appeal against the regulator's pronouncements, they will find that there is not one.
That lack of equity extends a lot further. Insolvency provisions may not be everyone's idea of an absorbing read at bedtime, but I do not exaggerate if I say that the proposals that the Government have published for the insolvency of foundation trusts are truly outrageous. My noble friend Lady Noakes will speak on this issue later. Let me simply say that as the implications of these provisions dawn on the business community, I shall be interested to see how many banks or businesses will believe that foundation trusts represent an acceptable trade risk.
I need to move on to what I consider to be the most serious consequences of this part of the Bill. The first is its effect on the NHS as a whole. There is to my mind one pre-eminently damaging feature of the Government's proposals and that is the ability of foundation trusts to gain privileged access to capital at the expense of the rest of the health service. It is what my noble friend Lady Noakes referred to as the zero-sum game. The issue can be described very simply. We know from the Treasury that the total pot of capital available to the NHS, including money borrowed from the private sector, is a strictly limited one. If foundation trusts are allowed readier and freer access to that pot of money than are other NHS bodies, then as night follows day every pound of foundation trust borrowing means a pound less for the rest of the NHS. The trusts that really need more capital and that are trying desperately to raise their standards.

913
and improve their services will actually find that with the advent of foundation trusts it is more difficult for them to do so. Patients will be the losers from the proposal. As I said at Second Reading, it amounts to a dog-eat-dog culture, and it is one that we should not countenance.
The Minister's reply to my noble friend in Committee was completely unconvincing. He said that the limited amount of available capital was not in practice an issue, because the pot of money was very much bigger now than it ever had been in the past. Anyone who knows how tight the finances of the NHS currently are—that is anyone who has spoken recently to managers of trusts—will realise that the Minister's argument is bogus. Record sums of money are indeed flowing into the NHS, but the vast bulk of it is already spoken for, not least in pay and pension rises, but also in funding past deficits.
It will take several years for every trust to become a foundation trust—five years at the very least. During that time, the increases in the health budget will be nothing like those that we are now experiencing. That means that NHS trusts will need to compete as hard as ever for capital. Those trusts that are not foundation trusts will find that they are competing on a decidedly unlevel playing field.
This part of the Bill stands or falls on its detailed provisions. That brings me to the other area of profound difficulty for us. The governance arrangements for foundation trusts carry very serious risks for the health service. Set aside the obvious fact that running elections and maintaining membership lists are a cumbersome and expensive distraction for the NHS from its core task, which is looking after patients. Set aside that democracy of such a kind and on such a scale has never been attempted in the NHS before; look instead at its implications for the care of patients.
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, the system will embed politics in the management of our hospitals. He spoke of governing boards consisting of party-slate politicians, single-issue campaigners and, at worst, extremists. The influence of the elected board of governors on how a hospital is run will be enough to ensure that its board of directors has its hands tied in ways that may run completely counter to its professional judgment.
We debated the phenomenon of entryism. I have yet to hear a convincing argument from the Minister that demonstrates that the risk can be eliminated. A small group of agitators on a board will wreak havoc, and there will be no remedy for it, because of the lack of accountability that lies at the heart of the arrangements. Those whose interests really need to be represented—the inarticulate, the disabled, the mentally ill—will be excluded. Again, the Bill provides no remedy for that. It substitutes one kind of politicisation for another, in a potentially much more dangerous form. As my noble friend Lady Hanham emphasised, how a hospital is run is not just a detail, but very important. Innovation, change, well motivated management and rapid decision-making are being put seriously at risk.
It is no small thing to ask the House to reject a major part of an important Bill. However, I feel justified in doing so on this occasion. The proposals are either ill-thought through or, to the extent that they have been thought through, misconceived and wrong. Grave concerns were expressed on the issues when the Bill was in another place. The slim majority secured by the Government was testament to that. I do not therefore believe that it would be inappropriate to ask the other place to think again on whether foundation trusts, as conceived in the Bill, are the right way forward for the NHS. I beg to move.
11.15 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 97.I support the arguments of the noble Earl; we on these Benches agree with many of them. I also want to place further arguments on record.
I have been asked on a number of occasions whether the Liberal Democrats object to foundation trusts in principle or as a practical matter. The answer is both. When a concept is fundamentally flawed in so many ways and becomes beyond redemption, practical objections essentially become ones of principle. No one argues with the principle that more devolution is necessary. That is a view of the NHS nowadays held in common by all political parties, and particularly strongly on these Benches. The issue is whether foundation hospitals essentially deliver that. Our view is that foundation hospitals are completely flawed as a mechanism, in terms of both their impact on the health system and the governance system adopted.
On a number of occasions in Committee, the Minister rather stoically said that he did not accept that foundation hospital arrangements were a dog's breakfast. The conclusion all the way round the Committee after many days was that they were. As we discussed then, the basis for selection is subject to considerable criticism. Star ratings are a flawed mechanism. They are arbitrary in many cases, and there is evidence that the assessment process can be manipulated.
As the noble Earl said, the impact of foundation hospitals will be adverse. It is doubtful whether all NHS trusts can achieve foundation status within four to five years. During the course of the passage of the Bill through Parliament, the Government have increased the number that may be eligible to 63. Even if they stated that the number would be 200, that would still not be achievable in the period of time. In the mean time, foundation hospitals will affect the viability of other hospitals in their areas. Despite ministerial assurances in Committee, after an initial phase during which foundation hospitals need to adhere to Agenda for Change, they will be able to vary employment terms and conditions and draw staff away from non-foundation hospitals.
As regards borrowing, which we debated at length in Committee, foundation trusts will compete with other trusts for resources. The NHS budget for acute hospitals will remain unchanged and foundation trusts

915
will be playing a zero-sum game with NHS resources in competition with other parts of the NHS. There is no duty on foundation trusts when borrowing to have regard to the impact on the rest of the NHS. That inevitably will lead to greater inequalities between hospitals.
Then we come to the extent to which foundation trusts can compete with the independent healthcare sector and the provisions of Clause 15. I am all in favour of strong finances for NHS trusts, but if we genuinely believe in achieving capacity for the NHS and in a mixed economy which allows the private sector to compete to deliver services to the NHS, it is important firmly to restrict the provision of private healthcare by NHS hospitals. We know from the recently announced NAO review that that body has considerable doubts about the provision of private healthcare in NHS hospitals as regards whether it is being delivered as a loss leader. That NAO review is long overdue.
At the end of the day, the key issue is whether there will be any resulting benefit for patients. The well respected Health Select Committee rightly questioned whether such competition between hospitals would benefit patients. There is also a great deal of uncertainty about the nature of the duty to consult before a foundation hospital is established. We are promised regulations and we know that guidance has been issued for the existing applicants. Indeed, throughout the Bill we are promised regulation at every turn. But there should be a minimum requirement on the face of the Bill
There is the issue of patient and public consultation. Foundation hospitals, even under the Government's current proposals, will have no duty to maintain patients' forums. There is huge disappointment that patients' forums are not provided for in the Bill. Simply having a board of governors or a few non-executive directors is no substitute for a properly constituted patients' forum.
In Committee, much faith was placed on the regulator. But at that stage we established that the regulator will have limited powers and duties in regulating foundation trusts. Indeed, throughout the Committee stage the Minister said, rather bizarrely, that the regulator was a referee, not a regulator.
At the end of the day, rather than going down the foundation hospital route, the essence must be to free the providers of healthcare from bureaucracy and central control and to increase democratic accountability where it really matters—with the commissioners of NHS healthcare. They are the ones who hold the budgets; they are the ones charged with improving health outcomes; and they are the ones charged with improving public health and reducing health inequalities.
It would be much better to make the commissioning system democratic. On these Benches we say that the best way to achieve that is by integrating health and social care. But, ultimately, under these proposals, it is very likely that, despite all the rhetoric, foundation hospitals will be no more free than they were before the legislation.
916
Turning to Schedule 1, in Committee Members on all sides were in agreement that the "architecture" of the governance set out in the Bill as the Minister described it is of an unbelievably Gothic nature and quite unsuitable for delivering genuine devolution of power to acute hospitals. In the amendments tabled today, the Minister has tried to install a few flying buttresses, but, if anything, he has made the situation worse. No doubt we shall be debating those further.
The constitution of what are described in the Bill as "public benefit corporations" promises to be a nightmare of bureaucracy. Each trust will have two tiers, a board of governors and a board of directors, but the board of governors will have virtually no powers. A membership—the so-called "public" constituency, staff constituency and patients—will elect the majority of governors. But what constitutes a patient? Who will be eligible? The area to be covered for membership purposes will be entirely arbitrary.
The membership and governance system in each foundation hospital will be locally determined within an overall template. It will be cumbersome and complex. We hear that the average membership of a foundation hospital is likely to be 10,000. But that membership will be self-selecting, giving rise to the danger of take over, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, by sectional interests. What are the limits on how foundation hospitals define membership?
The cost of maintaining the register of members and communicating with members will be massive. This is not cutting red tape, but creating more; and it will not lead to better clinical governance. Something like £250,000 to £400,000 could be spent on the governance of some of the foundation hospitals to maintain and communicate with their membership. That is a staggering figure when we consider for what other purposes the money could be used. Until the Minister's amendment tabled today, there was no minimum requirement for clinicians to be members of the board of governors, so the Government are still tacking on additional bits to this incredibly gothic structure.
We believe that public benefit corporations could be quite adequately run as companies limited by guarantee, as are many of our major charities, with trustee directors nominated to represent the communities or stakeholders they serve. But the bottom line of all this is that none of it will lead to better clinical outcomes for patients. We have had too much tinkering already.
It may be that throughout these debates the Government will not listen to the Opposition parties. Obviously, we would prefer that they did, but if they will not at least they might listen to their own members and supporters. Virtually every organisation affiliated to the Labour Party representing staff in the NHS either has doubts about or opposes foundation hospitals. Look at the vote of the Government's own conference in October. Who will this Government listen to if they will not listen to their own members and supporters?

917
This is an opportunity for the Government to think long and hard about these proposals and take them away and rethink them. We on these Benches very much hope that they will take that opportunity.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, noble Lords may feel that in seeing me rise today they are seeing Dame Nellie Melba in action because for some time I have been saying that I will not be present for much longer. The Minister will be greatly relieved to hear that my surgery is booked for next week and so I shall be getting off his back.
As it is an important experience to go into our NHS hospitals, it is right that I should begin by paying tribute to John Coltart and Graham Venn and their wonderful team of nurses and technicians at St Thomas's. As the House would expect, they have shown to everyone wonderful professionalism, wonderful humanity and, more surprisingly to me, great efficiency. That is why, as we enter today's debate, I blink in disbelief at the Government's rank frivolity that will deliver such people into the hands variously of party hacks, single-issue fanatics and fascists. It will not happen everywhere, but it will happen to many of our greatest hospitals. That is why I trust that your Lordships will support the removal of Clause 1 today.
Let me make it clear to my noble friend that I am not opposed to foundation hospitals. If properly thought through, I can see their virtues. I do not accept all the strictures of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, against them. There is also common ground in that every one of us believes that there must be much more local and individual involvement in hospitals. We want to see more consultation and accountability. We want to see the use of focus groups and citizens' juries and all the devices which in a modern democracy can create a genuine stakeholding community in our hospitals. We want all that. But instead the Government have fixated themselves on a single method of accountability— namely, election—in a way which, in my view, will have all the adverse consequences to which I have referred.
They are doing that partly on a completely mistaken analogy with schools. There are problems with the greater accountability and local involvement which we now have in schools. In many areas, it is difficult to obtain governors. But the point is that a school is rooted in its community. Parents go to the playground every day and talk to each other. They know what is happening in that school.
A hospital is not like that. I hope to go in and come out cured. A waiting room is not like a school playground. I have three children who went through state education. When we went to the school playground, we talked all the time about how the school was doing. In waiting rooms, people do not talk about key performance indicators, standardising mortality rates or the kind of subjects that are discussed in school playgrounds. Indeed, something approaching silence is to be found there. That relationship simply does not exist among the members of the boards to make the concepts in the Bill stack up.
918
I am afraid that we are seeing that now in the consultation process on this issue. I was told about the consultation on foundation hospitals that took place in Yorkshire. It was attended by the executive boards of the hospitals and the regional officer of UNISON but no one else—not one member of the local community. I do not say that all consultation has been like that, but that is an example.
How have we come to that situation? I shall tell noble Lords what I believe has happened. The very concept of foundation hospitals is not popular in some quarters in my party, for reasons that I understand. Therefore, the Minister was left to sell an uncomfortable concept and the Government thought up a jolly good wheeze. Local Labour groups and MPs love elections; that is what they are in business for. Therefore, they decided to introduce a load of elections without thinking through in any way how they were going to do that. But that is what they decided—they thought that elections would cheer up the troops.
We see that now in the talk about mutuals. I strongly believe in mutuals but not the kind that one finds in the other place. It was a political wheeze or fix to get the concept through the other place. I believe that there is too much politics in our health service rather than too little. When our hospitals become subject to a political wheeze of that kind, I tremble for their future.
In addition, the Government are in a tearing hurry. No one can read Schedule 1 to the Bill and believe that the issue has been thought through in any detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out. It is a democratic disgrace that, while the Bill is still before our Houses of Parliament, the Government are pushing ahead, with crucial steps being taken in December to set up foundation hospitals so that some will be in action by next April.
One cannot legislate sensibly in that way. We have a model for dealing with legislation. It starts with a manifesto pledge, followed by Green Papers, White Papers, Joint Committees for pre-legislative scrutiny and scrutiny in both Houses. Then one can introduce legislation that works, as we showed when we dealt with the Communications Bill. One cannot introduce legislation in the way that it is being done in this Bill or at this speed and get it right. The House now has a chance to send the Government away to think through the matter.
This proposal is Alan Milburn's bathtub musings turned into half-baked legislation. We now have a different Minister, a very sound Government and a sound Minister in this House. Let us take this opportunity to change foundation hospitals so that they work.
What does someone in my position do? I remember the story of the boy who never spoke. He reached the ages of five, six and seven and was seen by all the specialists, but he never spoke. One day, he turned to his mother at breakfast and said, "Mother, this porridge is too cold". His mother said, "That's marvellous. You haven't spoken up till now". He said, "Well, nothing has been wrong up till now, mother".

919
I have been in the House for more than four years. Until this Bill came before us, I never voted against the Government. I did not even abstain on any proposition before the House. I hope very much that I shall not have to break that record today. In this grouping is a set of amendments tabled by me and by noble Lords on the other side which I believe would draw the fangs from this animal. It would make it just about workable; it would not be ideal but it might be tolerable.
If, in replying to the debate, the Minister indicates that he will accept the amendments that I and others have put forward, I shall be spared my dilemma. However, if not—I fear that that will be the case—I shall be faced with a difficult choice between my loyalty to my party, which I hope has been great, and my loyalty to the National Health Service, on which my life and that of millions of our fellow citizens depend. In those circumstances, I am afraid that I shall not hesitate to vote to save our National Health Service.
11.30.a.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, unlike the boy in the story told by my noble friend Lord Lipsey who did not speak until the porridge was cold, I was born screaming, crying and protesting. My record on supporting the Government is, I should say, patchy. However, on this occasion, I stand proudly behind my noble friend. I stand behind the Bill, and I hope that the House rejects this set of amendments.
Listening to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, one has the feeling that somehow policy is born absolutely perfect with not a blemish on it. One has the impression that, until now, we have done nothing but fashion perfect policies and that, once a policy is perfected, we never revisit an issue. It is as though, in history, we have had only one education Bill, one health Bill and one criminal justice Bill and so on.
We are making a major change that worries many people. The people who are worried about such changes are wrong, in the sense that they want to maintain the old National Health Service. We are saying that it is time to move on and to make—this is a horrible cliché—a really radical change. In doing so, we must take people with us. If there are doubts, we must admit that there are doubts—we cannot have the whole loaf now.
Of course, the foundation hospitals that I want to see are not set out in the Bill, but there is something here on which we can make progress. The important point is: are we going to do it now or are we going to wait for everyone's perfect dream world and then, perhaps a few years later, once again go through this debate?
I was surprised by the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made against local democracy. As a boy, I used to hear people in colonial India say, "You can't trust these people with democracy. You never know who might capture the government. All sorts of corrupt people may capture government— even fascists". That is very interesting. Why do we not
920
simply trust the people to know their own interests, to look inside their own stomachs, hearts and livers— whatever it is that people look into—and trust them to do the right thing? That is better than saying, "We are never going to have democracy until we write down here a condition in such and such a schedule that only perfect people will vote, and those perfect voters will do only what we, the great and the good, tell them to do. Of course, we shall not have any control over them. We are going to decentralise. We want to devolve and decentralise so long as they don't take part".
Schools are not like hospitals. Indeed, secondary schools are not like primary schools. When my children went to primary school, I went to the playground. When they went to secondary school, I did not go to the playground. Each parent-teacher association reacts differently. I was a governor of primary schools and secondary schools and have taken part in many meetings. A parent-teacher association meeting to which no one comes makes a very happy school.
I believe that foundation hospitals are a good experiment. Problems are involved, but let us launch the scheme. In the National Health Service let us give back some ownership to the patients and the professionals. That is the essence of this measure. For a little time when I was young, I believed that the revolution would come before I died; now, I am very happy when a radical change occurs. Therefore, I shall support the Bill, and I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, could someone from this side of the House say a word? I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I shall be very brief.
In Committee, in Amendment No. 17, I made a modest attempt to limit the number of people, to check the growth of a public benefit corporation to something short of a regiment. At the moment the Bill requires a minimum whereas a maximum is required. It seems to me that the idea of a public benefit corporation is an attempt on the part of the Government to give a superficial impression of being democratic. The likelihood is that it will be a mess. For those reasons I would have liked there to be a Division on this amendment, but it is absorbed into a forest of other amendments so I suppose that will not happen. However, I support every word that my noble friend Lord Howe said in moving the amendment. I hope that it will come to a Division, in which case I shall support him with pleasure.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will not follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I have tremendous admiration for him and I am delighted that he has taken part in our debates on the National Health Service because he brings a very refreshing intellectual mind to bear.
This is a very important reform for the National Health Service. It would be devastating if the House were to reject the whole concept of foundation trusts and if that were to be confirmed in another place. We cannot

921
continue to run the health service as we have done for 50 years through a command and control approach, with Ministers supposedly held to account by Parliament for every aspect of the running of a huge organisation. By 2008 the NHS will spend over £90 billion. It employs 1.2 million people and has a management structure that makes it impossible to run effectively and efficiently, with the ludicrous concept that everything that happens in the NHS is, in the end, forced to be held to account in this place and another place.
Such a situation leads to the fact that we have had so much restructuring over the past 20 years. I see a number of noble Lords in their places who have had a hand in that restructuring, including myself. It has lead to the concept of targets, targets and targets, central interference and micro-management. The very people to whom one wants to give space to run the health service effectively at the local level are disincentivised; their morale breaks down because they cannot carry out an effective job in the quite ludicrous over-centralised structure that we have.
The whole point about foundation trusts is the transfer of accountability from Parliament to local people. That is why the issue of democracy is so important. I say to my noble friend, having had a small role in the development of that policy, that the idea of democracy was not tacked on at a later stage. It was at the heart of the whole process when the policy was devised. Responsibility cannot be transferred from national level to local level without a transfer of accountability as well. To be accountable locally a democratic base is needed. That is why a membership structure is required for those foundation trusts that will enable the transfer of accountability to take place.
It is true that I, too, have had concerns about the Government's structure. I have made that clear on a number of occasions. I, too, do not understand why the board of governors is not the sovereign body in this legislative programme. I have never received a convincing response to that point. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, concern about the huge groupings. I can assure noble Lords that I intend to speak fully on my amendments in those groupings and I shall expect a full response. However much Front Benches may try to curtail debate and try to sort out the timing of votes, as individual Members we are permitted to debate our own amendments.
Here we are talking about the substance of the debate on foundation trusts. There are faults and flaws in the legislation, but my noble friend Lord Warner, in Committee, responded—I think very positively—to many of the points put forward. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is a very fair person and often he acknowledges the fact that the Government have moved on many issues. I put to him this point: I would understand a principled opposition to the issue of foundation trusts if, in Committee, my noble friend had simply pushed away all the issues and concerns that had been raised. But he has been generosity itself. Not only does he bring forward today a swathe of government amendments responding to points raised, but he also accepted in Committee a number of amendments that
922
improve the governance structure. On that basis, that is fair dos. I ask noble Lords whether they really believe, in the light of that flexibility, that it is in the tradition of the House to reject the whole concept of foundation trusts.
At the end of the day, if we want an excellent health service, we need to give those running the health service locally the responsibility and the trust to do a good job. Surely foundation trusts are one major way to do that. I hope that the House will support the concept.
11.45 a.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I want to respond to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Desai. I fully support the case that has been put in opposition to this form of devolution to local hospitals that has been outlined by my noble friend Lord Howe. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I used to work very closely together and at one time I was actually his boss. He was my chief executive and he was exceptional. He was imaginative, entrepreneurial and a person with huge skill.
A noble Lord: My Lords, and judgment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, not judgment, as I heard a noble Lord say.
The noble Lord and I worked extremely well together in the NHS and we knew it very well indeed. That is why I find it breathtaking that the noble Lord suggests that nothing has changed in the governance of the National Health Service over the past 50 years. He will remember very clearly, as I do, the right honourable Kenneth Clarke introducing many reforms that brought in a new concept that was NHS trusts. That took place just before a general election and members of the Labour Party were telling people that NHS trusts were set up to privatise the National Health Service. I remember visiting hospitals where elderly gentlemen and ladies had their wallets and purses because they thought that they would have to pay for the National Health Service. It was a disgrace.
Trusts were brought in and huge freedoms were given to most people: to the executive team, to the non-executives and to the chairs. They excelled and we saw tremendous improvements. In 1997 the Labour Party came to power. The new administration felt that they really understood the whole concept of power and how to run the National Health Service. Increasingly, they took more and more power; they took power away from those who were appointed to run hospitals, demoralised them and neutered them to some extent so that they could no longer do what they thought was appropriate for local people.
Now I want to be a little humble. I remember distinctly that when we—the Conservative administration— bought in NHS trusts, one of the things that we did was to concentrate all the skills, energy and excitement on hospitals. That was a flaw. All those attributes should have gone to the health authorities who were the commissioners. The same mistake exactly has been made this time round: the Government have again concentrated on the hospitals.

923
The purpose of hospitals is to treat and to cure and to do so with compassion and efficiency, so that there is cleanliness and clean linen and that there are good treatments that are effective and efficient. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has had such good treatment at St Thomas's. St Thomas's is an extremely good hospital, and there are others. But there are also others that are poor, where records are lost, where there is no clean linen and where there are staff who are not employed but who come through agencies and do not have the same kind of commitment. It is that which needs addressing. It is the efficiency and the effectiveness of our hospitals that needs addressing. We should not be playing around with their governance.
If we need democracy in the health service—I am not denying that we do—we need it at a different level. We need it with the primary care trusts, which decide the priorities in their area, where the money is to be spent and the major policies, working with strategic health authorities. I share enormous misgivings about the governance arrangements, not least because we are distracting the managers who should be running the hospitals but are now spending their time having to work through a whole new concept.
I thank the Minister, who sent me a copy of a letter after the Committee stage, addressed to my noble friend Lady Noakes, reminding me of a very interesting document entitled A Guide to the Preparatory Phase. On page 7, it states:
"The minimum framework for the governance arrangements is set out in legislation".
What arrogance. It says, "set out in legislation", not "proposed legislation". That sounds as though it is all signed and sealed.
The guidance sets out a heavy burden of documentation, consultation and crystal ball gazing. It is complex; it is difficult; and for the first time it sets commissioning in a legal framework. It is onerous, but it has a comforting paragraph entitled, "Department of Health Reassurance". The reassurance given by the Department of Health to the brave people who are going forward is to set up a help line: a help line for people who should be running their hospitals. But they are going to attend, we are told, specialist events. Chief executives and treasurers are going to go for training. There will be seminars and source books. There will even be supplied secondees to hold the hands of top executives in the applicant hospitals.
I do not deny that that is necessary; I am sure it is. This is a whole new concept. Those people are going to need a lot of help. My point is that those people are managers. They have talent and skills, and there are not enough of them. They should be running the hospitals and concentrating their mind on reducing hospital infections and all the things that we know are not brilliant, but which need addressing—not in all hospitals, because some are good, but there are many that need a lot of help.
924
So I share very much the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. It is absolutely right that we should not be tinkering with governance when there are better things that we should be doing with the National Health Service.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, when I first heard about the idea of foundation trusts, I was sceptical. I have listened to the arguments over many months—perhaps even years—and I have been persuaded that I agree fully with my noble friend Lord Hunt.
I can develop my arguments briefly. Before I do so, perhaps I may say that my experience of the health service, other than as a patient, is based upon having served as a local councillor on an area health authority and then, more recently, on an NHS trust. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege: I believe NHS trusts were a sensible development. Indeed, I was enthusiastic to be a member of an NHS trust. That stopped at the 1997 election, when I was transferred to Northern Ireland.
Let me draw on some of my experiences when serving on those bodies because they are directly relevant to the proposals before us today. I do so on the assurance—I have heard the Secretary of State on a number of occasions give this assurance—that the fundamental basis of the National Health Service will be maintained; that is to say, that the service will be free to people who need hospital care. Provided that that principle is accepted and continued and the assurance is there, the way is open for us to see what kind of improvements will come to patients through the adoption of foundation trusts.
Some people say that there will be two classes of hospital—foundation trusts and others. But of course we have had two classes of hospital ever since the beginning of the NHS. Teaching hospitals have dominated. They have dominated because they have attracted the lion's share of the money; and they have dominated because they have been, in my experience, a bit less accountable than others. Certainly when I served on the area health authority, such hospitals were powerful bodies and were less susceptible to accountability. Maybe, that has changed more recently. Teaching hospitals have dominated because they have attracted the best staff. Doctors, nurses and so on want to be in teaching hospitals. That dominance will be lessened through the foundation trusts because it will be open to other hospitals, not just teaching hospitals, to get that status.
My main argument is about management. I am actually surprised that the party opposite—which prided itself for a long time on its adherence to management principles and said that the economy should be run on the basis of sound management at every level, including in the public sector—has taken the argument the other way. I have listened over the years to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I have found him to be a moderate and persuasive speaker, but today he

925
reminds me of the days when we were in opposition. We got a line from the other end—"Never mind what you think, stick by the line".
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Dubs: It happened. Those of us who still remember will know what it was like. One has to put the arguments as well as one can. I do not want to make this in any way personal, but I have to say that the noble Earl, Lord Howe—who is reasonable, balanced and measured—had to use arguments that came to a conclusion with which, I do not think, he fully agreed. I am surprised at that. He could well have reached a different conclusion and supported the idea. Anyway, I do not want to make it a personal point.
The local management argument is crucial. When I served on an NHS trust, the welcome change from the old AHAs was precisely that we, as non-executive directors, got nearer to where management was. Those of us who remember the AHAs will remember that we did not have a chief executive. We had an administrator, a chief medical officer and a chief finance officer. Occasionally, as members, we asked questions. Those three would look at each other, and it was difficult to pin down accountability. Yet, they were all excellent high-calibre individuals. With hospital trusts, we, as non-execs, got nearer to the management issues. I certainly felt that we unearthed a history of not much management before the trusts. Management matters had been neglected. Yet, when we wanted to make key decisions, we were stymied because we had to go through the region and the department.
I give an example. The mental health hospital trust of which I was a non-executive director had a great deal of land which we did not need any more. We wanted to dispose of it. We could dispose of it, but the money would go to the region or the department. We would not get the money, even though there was a cost to us in selling the land and transferring services from that land further into the community. We were stymied. I thought, "I hope that the day will come when we can make local decisions and benefit from them ourselves, not do so with no benefit—in fact, as a burden—to us".
When I heard about foundation trusts, I thought, "If that brings management to the level at which it can be effectively exercised, that must be a good thing". That is why the Government's proposals are right and I am unhappy with the amendments. Yes, of course there are concerns about governance. There have been ever since the NHS began; we have always been unhappy about it. This is a move in the right direction. We may later discuss points of detail that the Government must consider, but essentially, it is right.
I say that because when I was a member of an area health authority, I was a local councillor. I felt that I was local; my ward was within the health authority area; I was confident that I spoke for the needs and concerns of local people. That gave me a strength that I did not have when I was on the board of an NHS
926
trust, where I did not have quite that sense of local accountability. If we can get more accountability into governance, that must be a good thing.
In conclusion, for all the difficulties that have been described about foundation trusts, they will give us a good chance to make the NHS better for the people that matter: the patients.
Noon
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like many in your Lordships' House, I felt ambivalent about foundation trusts from the beginning. A niggle that has been in my mind from the first is: if the proposals are passed, will they really make the kind of difference that we would all love to see in our NHS? What characterises a good regiment, a good business, a good school, a good hospital or even a good church? It is what goes under the name of the ethos, the milieu. People feel proud to belong to it; they give not only their best but more than their best. They feel valued to be part of that organisation or business.
We know that good political decisions can help to create the kind of ethos in which people feel proud to belong to the organisation. We know that bad political decisions can certainly help to undermine that kind of ethos. That kind of ethos is dependent on more than good political decisions—good political decisions are vital; but, in the end, it has something to do with certain intangibles about local leadership. Local democracy can help to create that kind of ethos, with a greater sense of participation and local belonging. As I try to make up my mind which way to vote, I especially want to hear from the Minister how he thinks that these arrangements for local democracy will help to create the kind of the ethos in which people connected with the hospital give of their best and more than their best and feel valued as part of it.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate—and, I suspect, many others in the House—I face a real dilemma over the Bill and the clause, a dilemma that was not helped by our discussion in Committee. I am not one of those who opposes the concept of foundation hospitals in principle; to the contrary, in concept it is a welcome first step in dismantling what, it is generally recognised, has become an inefficient state-managed monopoly. I welcome the fact that the Government have crossed the Rubicon by recognising that such command and control state management cannot deliver the health service that we want and that it must, sooner or later, be dismantled.
Indeed, I look forward to the day when all hospitals and other parts of the health service become independent. I am not too bothered by the argument that that will create a two-tier structure, because it should be possible to move all hospitals to independent status sooner rather than later. I should welcome an assurance from the Government that that is their goal.
As so many noble Lords have said, the trouble is that the proposals are flawed. The notion of a foundation hospital as an independent institution able to run and manage itself to serve the local community with medical

927
practices at the forefront has been hobbled by the level of regulation proposed under the Bill, the financial restrictions to be imposed and the layers of government and the political interference to which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred so well.
So the proposals are highly flawed. The question in my mind is whether, nevertheless, they are a useful step in accepting the principle of independent provision of healthcare on which a future government can build.
I have a second point. As other noble Lords have said, hospitals are only part of the equation The far more important part of reforming the health service is freeing up the purchasing of healthcare.
In Committee, I and others tabled amendments to test whether the Government were willing to accept that PCTs—commissioning units—should also be able to apply for foundation status. Those amendments were unacceptable to the Government, but I was encouraged by the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—on Clause 5, I think—that the Bill does not restrict PCTs from applying for foundation status although, in fairness, she made it clear that the Secretary of State would not look favourably on that at present. I hope that I was right about that and that the Minister can confirm it when he comes to reply.
So, if one feels that a fundamental shift of the NHS provision structure from being a state-managed monopoly is the way to go, there are reasons to believe that the concept behind the Bill is worth supporting. As I said, the dilemma is that the current measures are deeply flawed. Like others, I shall listen carefully to hear whether, even at this late stage, the Minister suggests that the Government are sufficiently flexible and responsive to listen to those voices from all sides of the Chamber who say that there is a better way to do this, while maintaining the principle embodied in the Bill.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I shall be brief. I am not opposed to the principle of foundation hospitals. The concept of separating hospitals in the ultimate from the direct control of the Department of Health and offering them independence in running their affairs has a great deal to commend it. In Committee, I mentioned my experience when, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the 1970s, we created a university hospital management committee that included representation from the public, the university and the professions. All the hospitals in the city were combined under the management committee, which worked extraordinarily well.
Then came the ill-conceived reform of 1974 with the McKinsey management consultants report. Keith Joseph, the sadly lamented late Lord Joseph, introduced a form of consensus management with district health authorities, area health authorities and regional health authorities—a multitude of tiers. It soon became evident that the management of the hospital service was impossible because decision-making congealed because everything had to be achieved by consensus management at every level. That simply did not work.
928
We then had several debates about what to do. It became perfectly clear that at least one tier of management should be removed. One of my colleagues wisely suggested that the tier of management that should be removed was the department, but that did not achieve support in many quarters.
The concept is therefore attractive, but I warn the Government of what was referred to in Committee by me, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and others. When the late Lady Castle introduced her reforms introducing democracy into the National Health Service, the health authorities were loaded with very many local councillors. They were in the majority over professionals and people with a great deal of management experience. We all wish to see democracy in the NHS, but at that time, because of the enormous majority of people representing, as they saw it, their constituents, all too often they filibustered to try to look after constituents' interests and to ensure that a small hospital in their constituency was not closed. At times, decision-making almost ground to a halt. It is therefore very important that the Government recognise that the governance machinery set out in the Bill is impossibly complex and fraught with danger.
Although I accept the concept and would like eventually to see every NHS hospital achieve foundation status, the Bill is framed dangerously and is likely to create even more problems than envisaged by the speakers today.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, talked about the old teaching hospitals. That concept is long outdated. Practically every hospital in the NHS is now involved in teaching medical students. The number of students has increased so much that they have to be sent for part of their clinical training to regional and local hospitals. The dominance to which the noble Lord refers is a thing of the past. In many parts of the country, regional hospitals that were previously uninvolved in teaching are now very much involved. Teaching and research as a major function of the NHS is spread much more widely than it ought to be. I am concerned about whether those aspects, so crucial to the future of the NHS, can be achieved with the Bill as framed at present.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am beginning to think that there may not be much left to say. I admit to finding the reasons behind Amendment No. 2 confusing. However, I must express my interest as a rather simple and naïve physician without much nose for the political background to some of the amendments.
Words such as "bath water" and "babies" come to mind. The Bill makes the first steps away from control by central government and the Secretary of State. But, instead of trying to make the proposals work, with the many amendments that the Government have moved and accepted, and instead of pushing away from the centre, we are being asked to get rid of it altogether.
At Second Reading, I said that we should look towards the not-too-distant future, when all hospitals will be able to become foundation hospitals. I accepted that we must start somewhere, with some hospitals

929
that seem best prepared. The morale of everyone I know in the National Health Service, including all the doctors and nurses, depends on being free of constant regulation, the constant drive from the centre and constant jumping to what one Minister or another has said. That devolution is essential if we are to run a health service that will be good for patients in the way that the right reverend Prelate seeks. They want to get the Government out of their hair as quickly as possible. It seems to be a given that that is desired on all sides of the House; in fact, there is almost desperation to get rid of central control. But, instead of starting down the route that we all want to take, we are being asked to close off even that opportunity. I accept that there is much more to do, but I cannot accept Amendment No. 2.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who said that he was sceptical about the concept of foundation hospitals when he first heard of it but has become convinced that it is a good idea, I was extremely encouraged when I heard that we were to have foundation hospitals. Ever since the ending of the idea that the money should follow the patient, which I thought was developing well under the previous Conservative government, it has become clear that we need hospitals with some independence. As time has passed, notably during Committee stage, it has seemed that foundation hospitals were like a ship that was well built at the start, and a good idea, but that has became encrusted with so many clusters of barnacles that there is a problem over whether it can work as intended originally.
When noble Lords and, I hope, Members of another place read carefully the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, they will see that he made a pretty devastating account of what has happened to a good idea during the development of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, added to that. Interestingly, he indicated what he thought community politics would do to foundation hospitals. He knows all about that, as his party is expert at community politics, so I listened to him with great interest.
We will look at various clusters of barnacles during Report. At present, we are looking at the system of governance. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made an unusually vague speech on the subject, ending up by saying, very laudably, "Trust the people". The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, told us that the present system cannot possibly work and described why. He certainly knows about that, as he has been trying to run the system, with a great deal of expertise, and knows the difficulties. One of the answers, he said—I do not quote him precisely—was to change the answerability to Parliament to answerability to local people.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, a most distinguished philosopher, who sits on the Cross Benches and whom we all respect—alas, she is not with us today—gave last year a very interesting set of brief lectures entitled "A Matter of Trust". She described the
930
accountability culture that has developed in this country, why accountability is necessary, how professional people know that it is necessary, but how it can go wrong and make it very difficult for professional people to operate well. It is a very interesting account of which I am reminded constantly as the Bill proceeds.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, puts his finger on the button very adroitly and hits nails on the head very smartly. He said that the problem with Schedule 1 is that politics will become embedded in the National Health Service. That is a problem that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, discussed in her lectures. The noble Lord is a good socialist, so far as I know, and a loyal supporter of the Government at this time. He can criticise on detail, but, at present, he is criticising the Bill. He said a very brave thing—that he would like to take this clause out of the Bill. I hope that Members of another place will read what he and others on that side of the House have said, because we have come to a point at which our thinking about accountability has gone badly wrong. We will spoil the whole concept of foundation hospitals if we do things in this way.
The elaborate construction of an electorate in the Bill, the proposed way that governors will be elected, the way that governors will appoint managers and managers will run the hospitals make it clear that it will be possible for community activists—whether party politicians or any other sort—to ruin the whole thing quite easily. They very likely will. They may not mean to and may think that they are doing the right thing, but those of us who know how these things work can see what is likely to happen.
We want hospitals to create a setting in which professionals can function to high standards and communicate with their communities in a way that they need to do in order to keep in tune with what is wanted, but that will never happen with local activists breathing down their necks. The Bill asks for just that. There are so many simple ways that patients and potential patients could have a say, and ways in which competent hospitals could be set free to operate professionally to work out their own methods of working. There are so many ways that that could be done, but this part the Bill precludes that happening. I hope that noble Lords will examine this issue with great conscience and not vote to spoil our system just because of one quite small thing—the way in which hospitals will be governed.
I have one detailed question for the Minister if it is not out of place. I hope that he will forgive me. It may be in his briefing for the previous amendment that was not moved. If it is not, perhaps he could write to me. Is it possible for foundation hospitals in England to refuse under any circumstances to treat a patient based in Scotland? If that is so, it really would not be fair. At the moment, any Scottish hospital would treat anyone based in England who came to it for treatment and any English hospital would do the same for someone based in Scotland. If that will no longer be the case under the Bill, it would be a matter of great concern. I hope that he can give me a precise assurance, because it is an anxiety north of the Border and I feel that it is

931
something about which your Lordships would want me to ask. I hope that noble Lords will take courage and support my noble friend if he divides the House.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, this has been a very complex debate to date. We have had complex speeches previously and very powerful speeches at this stage. I do not wish to detain the House for very long. I would simply like to represent to the House the concerns of healthcare professionals. In every system that they have worked in, they try to look after patients who are extremely ill.
New technologies are emerging very fast in healthcare—faster now than in the days when I qualified. There is a very real concern among those trying to deliver frontline care—the cars that counts at the end of the day—that the changes proposed will truly enable them to do their job better than they do at the moment. There is a desperate plea to remove the hand of interfering politics from the way in which healthcare is delivered. Healthcare has to be delivered to absolutely everybody with a degree of equity based on need, not on demand.
I sincerely believe that the healthcare professionals will function professionally in whatever system is in place, because they have high ethical standards and codes. The Minister has certainly listened very carefully to comments that have been made and I will not be speaking to my amendment in this group because it has been superseded by a much better amendment tabled by the Minister.
This has been a complex debate, but we are being asked to take a leap of faith. Will the new arrangements improve or burden the top end of the health service? Will consulting with local people really improve the way that healthcare is delivered at the coal-face with this revolution before us, or were we better off looking at evolutionary change? Change is certainly needed. Nobody is a dinosaur. Nobody is against change, but there are some real concerns about how these arrangements will work in practice.
Many of your Lordships will have received correspondence from population groups concerned that somehow they will not be consulted on hospitals that they use. A sense of disenfranchisement is beginning to be felt by some groups from the hospitals that they would like to have a role in.
The Minister has a huge burden on his shoulders and I do not envy him, but the task to convince many Members of this House that the proposals before us will really bring about change and will be worth the expenditure and upheaval involved in them is difficult to undertake.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, set us off on the right question for this debate—whether the legislative process in relation to this Bill has worked. We on these Benches are convinced that, at this stage, it has not. We have in front of us one central question to answer: do the proposals add up to a National Health Service delivering a truly national health service with all that
932
is good about local knowledge, involvement, participation, flair and imagination? Is what is proposed fit for its purpose? At the end of a very long and detailed Committee stage, we have come to the conclusion that it is not. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, pinpointed the one factor that belies that—the way in which the Secretary of State runs through this legislation from beginning to end as the final arbiter.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, in a characteristically rambunctious speech and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and others, have talked about the dead hand of regulation on the NHS. This proposal will not change that at all, but it could be changed very effectively and quickly. The best thing that could happen to the NHS is a bonfire of targets, but we do not need this legislation to do that. In fact, it makes it worse. The Bill is the worst of management-speak and targets.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was near the mark, but wrong. He described the Committee stage as long on detail and where there were many answers. That is true, but there were many key issues on which there were either no answers or the wrong answers. Those of us who care about a National Health Service that works well locally have considerable concerns about the equity—as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned—and ethics of setting healthcare targets, and about the need to safeguard those with specialist needs and those who are the expensive patients in this new world of tariffs and diagnostic treatment centres. We did not receive convincing answers on these matters, which are the key issues we have to decide.
I have not yet met a healthcare worker who has not said that what they want is to provide healthcare, which is what they should do. We should be requiring local hospitals to focus completely on that. It is not their job to give the Electoral Reform Society a run for its money on questions of governance. Ultimately, we have failed very badly in the proposals in this amendment.
Many of the early hospitals in this country were charities. In my working life I advise charities on governance structures and constitutions. I would not advise a charity to accept these proposals and hope that they would be fit for any purpose, still for less for running a hospital service on which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, people's lives depend.
In voting against these amendments today I believe that we give ourselves and another place one more chance to do our job properly. It is for us to sort out a system of clear membership, decision-making and accountability. It is for us to do our job properly so that health workers can do theirs without hindrance.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall not repeat what my noble friend Lord Howe said at the beginning of this debate, but address one specific issue which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has described as generosity itself, which is to say, the government amendments to Schedule 1. We concede that the Government have tabled some amendments which help to tidy up the drafting. That was in response to points pressed by a

933
number of noble Lords in Committee. But we wish to make it quite clear that these are not concessions or generosity, but the ordinary act of a department tidying up an ill drafted Bill. Ultimately, there are many significant concerns—and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to some of them—which are completely untouched by these amendments. I wish noble Lords to be quite clear on our position on the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, it has been a colourful debate: we have had reference to ships and barnacles and gothic architecture and buttresses. It has also been a pretty synthetic debate as regards contributions from some parts of the House. I am grateful for the wise and balanced contributions from my noble friends Lord Desai, Lord Hunt, Lord Dubs and Lord Turnberg, from the right reverend Prelate and from the Cross Benches, particularly the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I am also grateful for the temperate and balanced response from the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. I hope that I shall be able to detach him from his party, having heard what I have to say.
I wish my noble friend Lord Lipsey a speedy recovery despite his remarks. I share his views on the staff at St Thomas's hospital and on NHS staff generally, but not those on the Government's arrangements. I doubt whether I shall change his views with my advocacy. We shall not have time during this debate to go through the details of this group of amendments.
As I said, I believe that there is a synthetic quality to this debate. The Conservative opposition say that they believe that our approach is fundamentally right, but our proposals on NHS foundation trusts do not go far enough. They are in alliance with the Liberal Democrats, who believe that they go too far. From these totally different perspectives they want to combine to wreck a core element of the Bill, the establishment of NHS foundation trusts. Talk about my enemy's enemy is my friend!
The biggest would-be wreckers are the Conservatives, who do not appear to be content with deleting Clause 1. They appear to want to remove the whole of Part 1 of the Bill. At least the Liberal Democrats have confined themselves to Clause 1. It may be that they want the image of a mini-opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is reported in the Independent today as saying that we are cack-handed. But lining up with the Conservatives on this issue hardly seems to be a masterpiece of political coherence.
Perhaps I may briefly remind noble Lords opposite that the NHS needs a huge level of investment after the long period of neglect by the party opposite. It certainly looks as though the NHS would return to that parlous state if the new Conservative leader, crowned today, I believe, ever reaches No. 10 Downing Street. We have invested about £8 billion in capital since the 2000 NHS Plan, that is to say, over the
934
period 2000–01 to 2003–04, and we are increasing revenue expenditure by over 7 per cent a year in real terms for five years in succession.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, brushes these considerations aside and asserts that the needs of foundation trusts would deny the rest of the NHS access to the huge amount of extra money that we are providing. That is simply not true. If the foundation trust applicants remained as NHS trusts they would still be competing for the enhanced resources with other NHS trusts. There would be a priority system in that capital allocation process. We have not changed the rules of the game in that respect; all we have done is to give foundation trusts far more freedom.
The idea that we are damaging the NHS through this Bill and that the Conservatives are the saviours of the NHS by wrecking it will convince very few people other than their own supporters, whose morale needs to be maintained. Our huge investment in the NHS has to be accompanied by modernisation and reform with far greater local freedoms for the NHS at its heart. My noble friend Lord Hunt has put the case extremely well.
NHS foundation trusts bring these local freedoms, but removing Clause 1 would prevent that. We know that local staff and communities have often felt disempowered by top-down control of the NHS while a lack of local accountability has impeded local services being properly attuned to the differing needs of their communities. These are the important considerations to which the right reverend Prelate was alluding when he spoke about trying to produce the most satisfactory ethos for the NHS.
The scare-mongering approaches that I read in the paper and which were mentioned by others today, whipping up arguments about extremists in the BNP taking over boards of governors, do them no credit. We have brought in safeguards against that. It will also be possible to make further amendments in regulations, as I believe is well known. That is why I referred to the synthetic quality of some of the debate.
The party opposite does not appear to want local people to have a bigger say in how the NHS is run although it claims to want to have local sheriffs. If the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to improve the governance arrangements he should settle down with us today and tidy up Schedule 1 rather than endlessly looking for reasons for not trusting local people to have a bigger say in the NHS.
The creation of NHS foundation trusts is part of the process of moving from an NHS controlled nationally towards an NHS where standards of inspection are national, but delivery and accountability are local, with far more diversity of provision including the involvement of the private sector, offering more choice to patients. That will create the kind of beneficial ethos that the right reverend Prelate was rightly concerned about with far more local involvement by staff and patients in their local healthcare system.

935
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly drew attention to the concerns of the healthcare professions. These changes will give them far more autonomy and freedom than there is at the moment. They will have a bigger say in the way in which their local NHS is run. Despite whingeing about excessive control, throughout the consideration of this Bill some of the parties opposite have consistently wanted to stop the devolution of power, if their amendments are to be believed. They are certainly giving out the message to all those applying for NHS foundation trust status that their views and preferences do not count.
Perhaps I may turn to that point and remind noble Lords opposite of what I said on the first day in Committee. As we speak, 25 NHS trusts are consulting on proposals to apply for NHS foundation trust status from next April. Now, another 32 have applied to be considered in the next wave. They include many deprived areas where healthcare systems can be better adapted to local needs. If all those applications were successful, more than 25 per cent of the population in England would have access to NHS foundation trusts by the end of 2004. We have said that there is no reason why all NHS trusts should not achieve NHS foundation trust—
12.45 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he tell me why, if this is such a good thing, we did not have a pilot or pilot schemes? That would have allayed the fears of people like me who believe that we are setting up a two-tier health service.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we discussed the subject of pilots in Committee, and I gave many of the figures that I have just used. We have a groundswell of movement towards foundation trusts from people locally. As I have just said, we are talking about more than 25 per cent of the population in England moving to foundation trust status by the end of 2004. If we had pilots of the kind moved by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we would have held up progress for many years. I hope that that will reassure my noble friend.
Of course, people will learn from the experience of the first wave. In a sense, there is an element of the pilot in that. People will learn from that experience; the trusts in the first wave will learn from that experience. We are not stopping that learning process in any way, but it is not right to stop people moving along that path when they are performing at the level that suggests they can earn greater local autonomies and they want to go in that direction.
With all the investment and help that we are providing to ensure that the less well performing trusts can raise their game, there is no reason why all NHS trusts should not achieve foundation trust status in five years. We are not promoting a two-tier NHS. Nor are we letting it become the mediocre service that the Conservatives would provide to justify promoting the private healthcare system. Those are the kinds of policies that emanate from their party.
936
There is no doubt that NHS foundation trust status is seen by many local people and staff as offering real opportunities to improve services for NHS patients. It is clear that the Government are right to proceed with legislation and that those who have expressed doubts are out of step with what the service wants.
To reassure noble Lords that we believe foundation trusts will produce a better health service with more local autonomy, foundation trusts will remain fully a part of the NHS. But they will have greater management and financial freedoms, including freedoms to retain surpluses. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the issue of surplus land and premises. They can use that much more under these arrangements for local development. They will be able to invest more easily in the delivery of new services, manage more flexibly, reward their staff in a way that is more appropriate to local circumstances and have access to a wider range of options for capital funding. As I said, given the large amounts of money that we are providing to the whole NHS, that will not damage the rest of the NHS.
Of course, their borrowing must be prudent, although some noble Lords opposite seem opposed to that, which I find slightly curious. NHS foundation trusts will not be subject to direction by the Secretary of State, but they will be overseen by an independent regulator. Incidentally, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I did not say just that the regulator was a referee; I was trying to give a simple differentiation between the regulator and CHAI. Under the proposals brought back today, the regulator will not be a single office holder. There will be a board structure, which is a good example of the discussions in this House producing change.
The regulator and the board have a similar relationship to the Secretary of State to that of other regulators. I do not think that his independence has been called into question by other noble Lords. We are not setting that person up in a different relationship with the Secretary of State. I think that noble Lords opposite know that, when they think quietly and soberly about the issues. They are all things that, at times, the Conservatives have said they support, but they persist in tabling amendments that would wreck the Bill.
The burden of the noble Earl's remarks seems to be that we have kept NHS foundation trusts in the NHS, working in co-operation with other parts of the NHS, and that we have not created the kind of healthcare market that he and his colleagues would like to see. He is right; we have not. They tried that once, and we think that it failed. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, rather poked fun at our attempts to help people with the transition to foundation trusts. I thought that the contributions of many other noble Lords suggested that that was the right approach. At least we are offering help in making the transition, which is more than can be said for one or two other previous reorganisations that have been attempted.
We have heard a great deal from the Benches opposite that the devil is in the detail of the governance arrangements. They imply that the Government have

937
not listened to legitimate concerns. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that there were more than 29 hours of consideration of Part 1 in Commons Committee. Before today, the Government had made at least 21 concessions on the Bill to meet concerns expressed here. On Report, we have responded to detailed concerns expressed in Committee by proposing 147 amendments on 26 substantive issues in the Bill. Of those concessionary amendments—I will use the words, "concessionary amendments" despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said—110 relate to Part 1 and Schedule 1, covering at least 16 substantive issues. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for pointing some of that out. Those on the Benches opposite do not have the patience to work their way through the detail. They just want to kick over the traces and wreck the Bill.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that we recognise the need to get the governance arrangements right. That is why we listened carefully to the points raised and responded with the swathe of amendments in the Marshalled List today. Even with those changes, we are not so arrogant as to suggest that there should be no review of the governance arrangements once they are in place. In response to an amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in Committee, I agreed to take away that matter. I can now tell the House that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is planning a major review of public service governance, including NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts. The inquiry will be chaired by the very distinguished Sir Alan Langlands, former chief executive of the NHS. I suspect that, effectively, it will do for public services what the Higgs review did for private sector companies. I have discussed it with the noble Lord, Lord Best, who, unfortunately, is unable to be here today, but he said that I could mention that development.
The Government see no reason to establish a rival review, when such a respected body as the Joseph Rowntree Trust will be conducting one that is likely to report by the end of 2004. With more hope than expectation, I ask noble Lords opposite to think again before going down the path on which they are moving. Even if the Conservatives' radar is too wonky for them to find the centre ground, I hope that the Liberal Democrat Benches will not follow them along the path they seem to want to tread.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will have listened with great interest and appreciation to the Minister's extensive reply, but I may not be the only noble Lord who thinks that he has somewhat over-egged his arguments. It is clear that there is a divide between us, but the divide is not the one presupposed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, or by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We do not argue with the principle of devolution in the health service; far from it. What we argue with is the form and detail of the devolution that is now proposed. The devil really is in the detail. I am genuinely disappointed that I feel compelled to oppose devolution in the NHS, but it is no good thinking that we can put a flawed set of provisions on to the statute book and sort out the problems later.
938
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned management. I am as keen as he and any other noble Lord is on sound and efficient management, but it is for that very reason that I am desperately worried about these proposals, because of what they will do to force and tie the hands of management in ways that could be profoundly counter-productive to people's healthcare.
It is no good the Minister talking about consultation with local people; I feel that he is being disingenuous. The one question local people are not being asked is whether they want a foundation trust. I think that that is a funny way to pay respect to local opinion, as the Government purport to do.
We can refer to these governance arrangements—as did some noble Lords in Committee—as a bold, democratic experiment, but that phrase obscures the huge dangers that this experiment poses to the competent and responsive management of hospitals. We can all be in favour of NHS devolution, but unless we get the governance arrangements right before we launch the ship, I believe that we will bitterly regret it. The fact is that, from the outset, the Government have remained wedded to the central blueprint that they devised for governance. I hope that the House will back the judgment of those of us who are urging the Government to resist the detail of these arrangements. In doing so, I ask noble Lords to reject both Clause 1 and Schedule 1 as a clear and firm exhortation to the Government to that end.
12.51 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 150; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Crathorne, L.

Alderdice, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Allenby of Megiddo,V.

Cumberlege, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dholakia, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Dixon, L.

Arran, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Attlee, E.

Elton, L.

Avebury, L.

Emerton, B.

Barker, B. [Teller]

Evans of Parkside, L.

Biffen, L.

Falkland, V.

Boothroyd, B.

Feldman, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Flather, B.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Fookes, B.

Byford, B.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fowler, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Freeman, L.

Carrington, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Goodhart, L.

Cox, B.

Greenway, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hamwee, B.

939

Hanham, B.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Higgins, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Quirk, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Reay, L.

Howe, E.

Redesdale, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rees, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rennard, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Renton,L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Jacobs, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Rogan, L.

Kingsland, L.

Roper, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Russell, E.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Saatchi, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Lipsey, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Liverpool, E.

Seccombe, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Selborne, E.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Selsdon, L.

Luke, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lyell, L.

Sharples, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

McNally, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Maddock,B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Marsh, L.

Swinfen, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taveme, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Tenby, V.

Methuen, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Montrose, D.

Tordoff, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Moynihan, L.

Trumpington, B.

Newby, L.

Ullswater, V.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Vivian, L.

Noakes, B.

Waddington, L.

Northover, B.

Wakeham, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Walmsley, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Walpole, L.

Ouseley, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Palmer, L.

Wigoder, L.

Patten, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Peel, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L

Colville of Culross,V.

Alli, L.

Crawley, B.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Desai, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bach,L.

Dubs, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie,L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Gale, B.

Bragg, L.

Gavron, L.

Brett, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Goudie, B.

Burlison, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L.

Grantchester, L.

Chandos, V.

Greengross, B.

Chorley, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Christopher, L.

Harrison, L.

Clinton- Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hayman, B.

940

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Radice, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Richard, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rooker, L.

Jones, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lockwood, B.

Sewel, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Masseyof Darwen, B.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thornton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Morgan of Huyton, B.

Turnberg, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warner, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Whitaker,B.

Paul, L.

Whitty, L.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
1.2 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF DEMOCRATICALLY ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE

(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish an independent review body to carry out the functions specified in subsections (4) to (6).

(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint at least nine members of the independent review body.

(3) The independent review body shall elect a chairman from amongst its members.

(4) The independent review body shall prepare reports containing proposals relating to the establishment of a local, democratically accountable system of governance for NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts.

(5) The independent review body may in particular make proposals in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) relating to—

(a)methods of securing wider public participation in the governance of NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts;

(b) methods of increasing public awareness and access to information about the governance of NHS foundation trusts and Primary Care Trusts; and

(c) the membership of public benefit corporations.

(6)The independent review body must—

(a) lay a copy of any report prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section before Parliament, and

(b)once they have done so, send a copy of it to—

(i) the Secretary of State, and

(ii) the regulator."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I tabled this same amendment in Committee and was pleased that the idea underlying it, if not the amendment itself, found

941
some favour with the Minister. He kindly said that he would think about the matter further, and he has just referred to that.
My views and those of the Government on what is a sensible and appropriate governance model for foundation trusts are poles apart and are likely to remain so. But we might be able to agree on two points: first, this is brand-new ground for the NHS, and foundation trusts may not get things right first time. Secondly, if it is left to foundation trusts to devise their own systems of democratic governance, we are likely to see a patchwork quilt of arrangements spreading out all over the country. Local flexibility is one thing, but what if the results are flawed or in some way unfair?
We have been told by the Minister that a review of governance arrangements will be carried out by the regulator after the first wave. That is of some comfort. However, I cannot help thinking that for those trusts, a review is likely to be a little late. How would a foundation trust be expected to put its arrangements on to a different footing if those arrangements were found wanting in some way? What would that do to the legitimacy of the board of governors and the directors? I suspect that at present there is no real answer to that. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what specific ideas he has had for ensuring that governance arrangements across foundation trusts are fair and that they work as well as they can. That is the concern here.
I welcome what the Minister said about the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which is an excellent organisation. However, we may need to go further than that. If there is to be a role for the regulator in looking at these issues, I wonder whether that should not be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said earlier, we have some sympathy with the ideas behind the amendment, as the noble Earl has recognised. However, we do not think it is necessary to put this on to the face of the Bill. It will not be in anybody's interest—ours or anybody else's—not to distil the wisdom from the first wave and the subsequent waves of experience in this area. The regulator will be able to do that and we know, as I said on the earlier amendment, that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation will have a look at the governance arrangements of a wide range of public bodies, not just NHS foundation trusts. That has the benefit of looking at NHS foundation trust governance in the context of some other public bodies. As I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Best, it will also look at NHS trusts which are not foundation trusts, so some interesting comparators will be made.
That kind of review is likely to be more beneficial than a separate review on the NHS alone. Noble Lords referred constantly in Committee—not unreasonably— to the Higgs recommendations. The Rowntree proposals would give us a context in which to look at the experience of NHS foundation trusts. So while we are sympathetic
942
to the principles behind the amendment, we do not think that putting such a requirement on the face of the Bill is the right way forward.
On primary care trusts, we have never said that we are opposed in principle to the idea of PCTs moving along some similar path. We have said that the Bill is not the right place in which to do that, as it is concerned with the provider side of the NHS. If we were moving along the commissioning side, it would be for the government of the day, at an appropriate time, to come forward with ideas after consulting a wide range of opinion.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I welcome the thought that the Government have clearly given to this issue during the past fortnight. It is a pity that nothing will go on the face of the Bill. I accept the Government's decision on that; nevertheless, it would be nice to find some way of coming back to this subject as a matter of certainty at some time during the next 18 months or two years in the light of initial experience. I shall try to be ingenious enough to find a way of doing that. Like the noble Lord, I shall look forward to what the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has to say on the broader canvas of governance arrangements. No doubt it will be possible to find a vehicle for debating its report if we feel so minded. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Amendments relating to NHS foundation trusts]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 109, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
"(1) The persons who may become or continue as members of a public benefit corporation are—

(a) individuals who live in any area specified in the constitution as the area for a public constituency,

(b) individuals employed by the corporation under a contract of employment and, if the constitution so provides, individuals who exercise functions for the purposes of the corporation otherwise than under a contract of employment with the corporation,

(c) if the constitution so provides, individuals who have attended any of the corporation's hospitals as either a patient or the carer of a patient."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, may I offer some procedural advice which has been agreed by the authorities of the House? Amendment No. 97, which would leave out Schedule 1, is consequential on Amendment No. 2 and should therefore be agreed by the House when we reach it. Schedule 1 will then be left out.
Normally, the House would not spend time discussing amendments to such a schedule. However, we are not prohibited from discussing amendments to Schedule 1, and I understand that it may be for the convenience of the House if we debate the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 4 now.
If I have the support of the House, I will now speak to my Amendment No. 4.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? I had some amendments in the previous group headed by Amendment No. 2. In fact, we had a principled debate on foundation trusts and I do not think any of us spoke to the huge number of amendments in that group. Should I speak to those amendments in the group that he is now introducing; or do we go back to this huge group headed by Amendment No. 5 and debate that as a group when we have disposed of Amendment No. 4; or do we unpick the whole grouping so that one waits until one's amendment is reached? I do not know whether the business managers have agreed this—it would be helpful to know.
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear from my noble friend. The short answer as I understand it from the House authorities is that we will deal with Amendment No. 4 and the amendments grouped with it, then move to Amendment No. 5 and then work through the amendments sequentially. So he will have a chance to move his amendments when we reach that point in the Marshalled List.
In Committee, I said that I would listen to arguments, try to take on many of the concerns and bring forward amendments to the Bill where it was appropriate to do so. I shall now try quickly to demonstrate just how reasonable we have been in this by setting out our thinking on these amendments.
Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 27, 34, 37, 38, 40, 52, 90, 258 to 260 and 262 form the first group to which I shall speak. It has always been our intention that NHS foundation trusts should have flexibility to "sub- divide" their public constituencies to provide for different groups to be represented on the board of governors. These amendments ensure that the Bill allows NHS foundation trusts to have a number of geographical public constituencies, and a separate patients' constituency, with each constituency able to elect its own representatives to the boards of governors. I should draw noble Lords' attention to a mistake on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 52 appears under the wrong names; it is in fact a government amendment which is incorporated in this group.
I turn to Amendment No. 8, on the definition of "carer". The intention behind including carers in the Bill was to provide for informal carers such as family members and others who provide care to patients because of a pre-existing close relationship, to become members of an NHS foundation trust. "Professional" carers such as care home workers, social workers and voluntary workers should not be included. The Government resisted earlier amendments to define "carer'' in Schedule 1 in case it removed flexibility to adjust to the changing nature of caring over time. However, we have listened carefully to the concerns that, without a definition of carers, this intention might not be clear. We are therefore proposing to amend the Bill so that people who are employed as carers are excluded.
944
Amendments Nos. 28 and 256 deal with the regulations on elections. These amendments seek to build on an amendment passed in Committee requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the electoral system to be used in elections to NHS foundation trusts' boards of governors. They provide an alternative draft which provides for a much broader regulation-making power and specifies some of the issues which regulations will cover. These issues include among others: nominations procedures, obligations on candidates to declare their interests, election systems, methods of voting, allocation of places on the board of governors to particular constituencies and election expenses.
The new clause draws on both the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 to ensure that the regulation-making power is sufficiently wide and addresses the key issues to ensure that elections to NHS foundation trusts' board of governors are conducted in a fair, open and appropriate way.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has today tabled a report recommending that the regulations under this new clause should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We are today tabling an amendment to Clause 191 responding to those recommendations, which would require the affirmative procedure in the first instance, and thereafter the negative resolution. Given that we have accepted the spirit and intention of the amendment passed, I hope that this modified version is acceptable across the House.
Amendments Nos. 48 and 73 deal with the chief executive being an accounting officer. In response to concerns raised in Committee, we are proposing to amend the Bill to clarify that the chief executive of an NHS foundation trust will be the accounting officer. The accounting officer is responsible for the preparation of accounts and their transmission to Parliament and the regulator.
On Amendment No. 50, we have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and much earlier in discussions in Committee. In recognition of the concerns raised, I propose government Amendment No. 50, which replicates the requirements on NHS trusts to have a medical or dental director and a nurse or midwife as an executive director. I understand that the British Medical Association supports this amendment.
Amendment No. 66 is consequential on continuity of non-executive directors. The Bill was amended in Committee in your Lordships' House to provide for continuity of the chair, non-executive directors and chief executive of an NHS trust applicant for NHS foundation trust status. A consequential amendment is required to ensure that where a non-executive director from an NHS trust is appointed to an NHS foundation trust, the requirement under paragraph 15(3) of Schedule 1 that they be a member of the public or patient constituencies, or, in the case of a teaching hospital, a university representative, is waived. Without this amendment there would be a barrier to transitional continuity of the non-executive directors.

945
Amendments Nos. 68 and 72 deal with governors' interests. The issue of alternative interests, and potential conflicts of interests, is particularly important for members of the boards of directors, who have decision-making powers and are responsible for the day-to-day running of NHS foundation trusts. That is why we accepted amendments in the other place providing for a register of interests of directors, and placing a requirement on NHS foundation trusts to include provisions in their constitutions for dealing with any conflicts of interest that arise. Concerns were raised in Committee that it was important that similar provisions should apply to the members of the boards of governors, to ensure proper transparency and accountability in these large public bodies. We have listened carefully to these concerns and are bringing forward these amendments to address them.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 73, 86, 88, 164, 168, 172, 174 to 177, 233, 241 and 270. During the passage of the Bill, it has become apparent that the location of the register of foundation trusts with Companies House has caused confusion about the corporate form of NHS foundation trusts. In order to address that, we are proposing to require the independent regulator to hold the register rather than Companies House. This amendment should have an additional benefit of reducing costs, since the regulator would already hold most of the documents required for the register for the purposes of fulfilling his other functions. Members of the public will have free access to inspect the register of NHS foundation trusts.
Amendment No. 73 ensures that the information held on the register relating to each NHS foundation trust is also available from the NHS foundation trust itself. Together, these amendments will ensure that information on NHS foundation trusts is readily and widely accessible to the public. I think that they meet concerns raised by the opposition Front Bench in Committee, so I hope that they can support them.
I turn, finally, to Amendments Nos. 76,79 and 82. We are still firmly of the view that, in line with the principle of greater freedoms and flexibility, NHS foundation trusts should be free to appoint their own auditors. Paragraph 22(3) provides for reputable sources of auditors for NHS foundation trusts, but we have listened carefully to arguments that the Audit Commission should be included in the group of bodies eligible for appointment as NHS foundation trust auditors. These amendments allow Audit Commission auditors to audit NHS foundation trusts, if appointed by an NHS foundation trust as its auditor. I beg to move.
1.15 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, I have to tell your Lordships that if Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 5 or 6 for the reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I very much welcome the changes which the Government have proposed to the Bill, particularly Amendments Nos. 4
946
and 8. Your Lordships will remember that many of us were concerned about which carers would be included in the Government's arrangements. Amendment No. 4 will ensure that carers are part of the members of the public benefit corporation. That is hugely welcome. Amendment No. 8 then defines "carer" and protects that definition by ensuring that carers are neither employed nor volunteers. In other words, they are the informal carers, the family members, who are caring as a result of a pre-existing relationship. They are not in either a voluntary or a financial arrangement. What my noble friend has done essentially is to ensure that there is clarity around the definition of "carers", which is extremely welcome, while ensuring that they also have a place at the table and therefore an opportunity to use their expertise and knowledge to support the new body. The amendments are welcomed by Carers UK and will be welcomed by carers everywhere.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I very much welcome all the amendments in this group save Amendment No. 256 which relates to the conduct of elections. This follows the passage of, I believe, an opposition amendment in Committee. Although Amendment No. 256 states, "Regulations may make provision", I take it to mean that regulations are required to be made. How long will that delay the establishment of foundation trusts? Subsection (3) of the new clause in Amendment No. 256 states:
"An NHS foundation trust must secure that its constitution is in accordance with regulations under this section".
I assume that it will take some time to put those regulations in place. They have to be written, consulted upon and come before Parliament under the affirmative procedure. I believe that my noble friend mentioned the affirmative procedure in relation to these particular regulations.
If foundation trusts are now consulting on their constitutions with their own scheme of elections, what is the impact on that if we now have an amendment accepted which states that the constitution cannot be decided upon until it is,
"in accordance with regulations under this section"?
Will that delay the matter by, say, six months? Alternatively, I hope that it is my noble friend's intention and that of his colleagues in the other place to get rid of this section when the Bill goes back to the other place. I certainly hope that that is the intent.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt welcomed all the amendments in the group with the exception of Amendment No. 256. However, in welcoming all the amendments in the group I particularly welcome Amendment No. 256. It is an important gesture on the Government's part in response to the Opposition's concern not to have an electoral system that makes it particularly easy for all the adverse consequences that the House discussed earlier to occur. After the previous debate on the subject I thought about electoral systems. You can design perfectly plausible electoral systems that will give a large range of results, particularly with regard to

947
the threshold which extremists would have to pass to get in. This is an admirable amendment. If, as my noble friend fears, it has the coincidental advantage of delaying the setting up of some of the trusts while we sort out the rest of the governance, that is an additional argument in its favour.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, tempts me to say how much I support what he has just said. I wish to speak briefly to the amendments in this group. In general we are either indifferent to them or we are pleased that the Government have listened to the points that we made in Committee. I wish to raise just one point. Amendment No. 76 adds an officer of the Audit Commission to those auditors who can be appointed. We have no problem with that. However, I remain concerned that the remaining elements of paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 allow persons to be appointed as auditors even if they are not qualified to carry out audits under the Companies Act, which is the only properly approved set of processes available to test the competence of those who hold themselves up as auditors. I believe that is unfortunate. I hope that if the schedule ever sees the light of day again, the Minister will reconsider that matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord particularly about Amendment No. 68 and the register of interests of members of the board of governors. I know that there has been a great cry for this in another place. I think that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches asked for it before and they have tabled Amendment No. 69 today. Have the Government thought about this? It is very important that the right people should be available to be governors. They will have a key role. It will be important to think out what sort of interests people are expected to declare. They must surely be relevant interests, not just any interest. To be asked to be a governor may be a great honour or it may be something that people are not frightfully keen on and need to be persuaded to do. But if they have to declare all their interests, I believe that many people will be put off this job.
It occurs to me that one relevant interest might be that a member, or a member's family, had a propensity to some sort of illness and was going to need acute treatment, perhaps frequently. Would that be something someone would be expected to declare? I do not necessarily expect the Minister to give a detailed answer on that but I believe the Government must have thought that relevant interests must be identifiable and written down somewhere so that people who should be governors are not put off that job.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I believe that some government amendments which the Minister introduced today are ones that we on these Benches would prefer to draw a veil over. A kind of triple decker public constituency is not something that we would wish to see incorporated in any schedule.
948
However, I do not think that now is the time or the place to debate the detail of a number of those government amendments.
I welcome government Amendment No. 50. I believe that members of the Royal Colleges of Nursing and of Midwives, the BMA and a number of professional organisations will very much welcome it. We on these Benches had tabled an amendment to include three such people as executive directors but to bank two will be perfectly respectable.
Government Amendment No. 68 sprang directly from a debate that we initiated in Committee on the interests of members of the board of governors. As regards government Amendment No. 76, the solution is not quite as mandatory as we would have argued for in Committee but the fact that it opens the way for the Audit Commission either to specify the auditors or to have its staff audit foundation hospitals would be an advance if such a creature were ever created. The amendments in this group constitute a mixed bag but some are to be welcomed.
I am rather torn whether or not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, or the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, but the Government's drafting as ever is extremely cunning. Paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 1 states—this is an insertion at the behest of the Conservative opposition in Committee:
"If contested, the election must be by secret ballot using an electoral system to be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
However, government Amendment No. 256 now specifies:
"The regulations may in particular provide for … systems and methods of voting, and the allocation of places on the board of governors, at contested elections".
That is some very fancy footwork by the Government. If this had a greater measure of reality and if we were discussing a real Schedule 1 as opposed to a virtual Schedule 1,I would prompt a Division on Amendment No. 256. Clearly, the Conservative amendment referred to an electoral system. The set of regulations that the Government propose in Amendment No. 256 refers to "systems". That is exactly the nub of the argument that was made both on these Benches and on the Conservative Benches; namely, that a plethora of systems is exactly what we do not want. To have different bases for election in different foundation hospitals is absolutely not what we want.
1.30 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I disagree with the Opposition for once on the issue. There is a case for different systems in different areas. It makes sense to have geographical constituencies in an area that is geographically dispersed, such as the Scottish Highlands. It probably makes no sense at all in an inner-city area where there is a much greater geographical concentration and other matters are of more importance. I hope that the noble Lord will not

949
slam the door on the possibility of variety. It is a question of horses for courses. The noble Baroness nods her head. Some systems will not work anywhere.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord knows all about horses, so naturally I would not dream of disagreeing with him at this stage, particularly as we are in a virtual debate. However, I caution the Government that the drafting could give rise to problems and fractiousness from these Benches.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I place on record my sincere thanks, and I believe those of my noble friend Lady Emerton, to the Minister for a very helpful discussion that we had that I think helped him bring forward Amendment No. 50, which we support. It improves on the amendment that we tabled.
It is extremely important for the professions to have the strong declaration of confidence in their role on the board that has come from the Government through Amendment No. 50. It means that the Government recognise the importance of the clinical directives from medicine and nursing in developing strategy and business plans; providing professional advice; communicating professional views and the trust's views to clinicians; being responsible for operational aspects of clinical governance and maintaining clinical standards; clinical risk management; safeguarding confidentiality; and research and development on information that the Government issue. The amendment will also allow a board to work with primary care colleagues, another important role in its liaison to primary care.
As a doctor and nurse, or a dentist if it is a dental trust, will be on the board there will be a huge responsibility on them to liaise with all the allied professions throughout the trust, to ensure that there is true multi-professional working and that all the issues of governance and strategy are filtered out, with information gathered from the whole multi-professional team. I am sure that I speak for my noble friend in saying that we have every confidence that the people in that position on the board will be able to discharge such duties. It is crucially important for any service to have that input at board level.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I thank the Minister and endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in relation to Amendment No. 50. The professions will be extremely appreciative of it. As the Bill has progressed through the House, there has been rising concern about the position that the professions would have. It is clear that they have a real leadership role, and they will welcome the amendment. The Royal College of Nursing, the BMA and the council of deans of nursing have all been very supportive to our amendment, and I know will support Amendment No. 50.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful for the supportive remarks of the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley, Lady Finlay and Lady Emerton.
950
I shall reply first to my noble friend Lord Hunt. The regulations clearly cannot be made in time for the establishment of the first wave of NHS foundation trusts for authorisation from April 2004. We intend to make regulations in time for waves established from the following year. We will have to issue guidance to prospective applicants on the areas that the regulations are likely to cover, to ensure a minimal impact. The regulator will have power to ensure that all NHS foundation trusts comply with the regulations once they are made. I hope that my noble friend will accept that that is a reasonable way to proceed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I realise that we are on Report, but new matters have been introduced. I seek guidance on when I might ask the noble Lord a question on them. I am grateful to him for his reassurance, which essentially means that the current wave of foundation trusts can carry on. However, I point out to him that subsection (3) of the proposed new clause in Amendment No. 256 states:
"An NHS foundation trust must secure that its constitution is in accordance with regulations".
I realise that subsection (4) states that,
"Pending the coming into force of regulations",
elections can still take place. However. Clause 6(2)(a) states that the regulator has to be satisfied that,
"the applicant's constitution will be in accordance with Schedule 1".
Schedule 1 states that regulations will have to be laid, but those regulations will not be laid in the first tranche.
I am not trying to be awkward. I act as an honorary adviser to a trust going forward to foundation trust status, which will be very confused on the matter. Perhaps between now and Third Reading my noble friend will give it further consideration.
Lord Warner: My Lords, in view of the time, I am happy to give the matter further consideration and report at Third Reading.
I shall briefly turn to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about auditors. The audit provisions in the legislation have been modelled in part on those of the Audit Commission Act, reflecting the fact that the bodies are public sector bodies. Auditors from the private sector appointed to audit public bodies under the Audit Commission Act 1998 must be members of the bodies listed in that Act or another body approved by the Secretary of State. Similarly, auditors appointed by an NHS foundation trust must be members of the bodies listed in that Act or another body approved by the independent regulator.
The Companies Act, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would exclude members of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, as those are people qualified to audit NHS trusts and other public bodies. We intend that they should also be able to audit NHS foundation trusts. I hope that that clarifies matters for her.
The noble Baroness, Lady, raised the issue of medical interests, in effect. That is not a relevant category of interest to be declared.

951
I always like to hear the Liberal Democrats adopt a liberal approach to electoral systems. I know that they would like us to say that PR was the only way forward in the area, but we are trying to pursue the thinking behind the remarks of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. There is scope for different electoral systems, but they will be prescribed in regulations. As I said, we have drawn on the experience of a number of other pieces of electoral legislation in framing the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.38 to 3 p.m.]

Sudan
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to recent developments in Sudan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Sudan remains a priority for our diplomacy. We are committed to helping the Sudanese parties reach a comprehensive peace agreement. We are encouraged by the recent progress achieved in the meetings between the Sudanese first vice-president and the chairman of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement and Army. We are also considering ways in which the United Kingdom and the international community can assist in the implementation of a peace agreement and in the long-term development of Sudan.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, it is with great delight that, for the first time in all the years I have been asking Questions on Sudan in your Lordships' House, I unreservedly thank the Minister for her very encouraging reply. It seems as though, at long last, there may be hope for a genuine peace agreement for the peoples of Sudan.
In that spirit, does the Minister agree that many problems persist, particularly, for example, reports of renewed aerial bombardment and the arrest, torture and inhumane treatment of Muslim civilians in Darfur, such as the sentence of a hand/foot amputation of a 16 year-old boy? Will the Minister therefore undertake to encourage, through Her Majesty's Government, the National Islamic Front
952
Government to accept international observers at the Darfur peace talks and also on the ground in conflict areas?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Baroness believes, as we do, that there is a real chance for peace. I thank her for her extraordinary endeavours in this respect over many years.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I also thank the Foreign Office officials who have put a tremendous amount of effort into this issue. Of course, many problems remain. We are aware of reports of renewed aerial bombardments. At the moment, I am not in a position to verify those reports, but we call on parties to respect the ceasefire.
Our ambassador in Khartoum has raised the question of the teenage boy which the noble Baroness has drawn to your Lordships' attention. That was pursued at an EU/Sudan dialogue meeting on 29th October.
We are following the talks in Abeche with close interest, and we are keeping in contact with all the parties to them. We believe that the best outcome will be one owned by the people of Darfur themselves and we stand ready to offer support and advice if the parties seek it.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, at the risk of introducing a discouraging note will my noble friend agree that there is little point in holding a referendum on self-determination for the South unless the people are in a position to make an informed choice? Will she confirm that education has been systematically withheld from the South; that information has been censored; and that whole areas have been terrorised into submission? Can the international community provide the resources for a proper information campaign before the referendum is held and before the settlement terms are irreversible?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we recognise that this is an enormously difficult problem. As I said to the noble Baroness, there is still some way to go before we reach a peace settlement. Having done so, we must recognise that the implementation of any agreement will need a concerted international response. As I have indicated to your Lordships, we stand ready to play our part and we are considering what other support can be given. I take the point that my noble and learned friend makes. It is hugely important that those who are asked to make decisions are asked to do so on as informed a basis as possible. There is still a great deal of violence in the country, and we shall need to ensure that everything possible is done to obtain the kind of information which empowers people to make the choices they need to make as quickly as possible.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join in the congratulations expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to the Minister and to Foreign Office staff

953
on the work they have done as friends of IGAD in helping towards the peace agreement which we hope will be signed towards the end of this year. Does the Minister agree that the conflict in Darfur, which according to the UN has led to the internal displacement of as many as 0.5 million people and 70,000 refugees over the border in Chad, needs the attention of the international community? Do the international humanitarian agencies consider that the corridors to the delivery of aid, which have recently been announced by the Sudan, are adequate to meet the problem? Furthermore, does she agree that, if the African Union would look at the wider implications of the conflict, it would help towards the security of people in Darfur as well as in Sudan as a whole?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that as much support as possible is needed for this effort, whether it comes from the neighbours of Sudan or from further afield. In that context, I pay tribute to the work done by my colleagues in DfID. This country has committed more than £220 million-worth of aid to the Sudan since 1991.
Let us turn to the question of the corridors. The fact is that there is still a great deal of violence, and there is a problem around Darfur. We believe that aid is getting through to the South, but in the West, around Darfur, great problems remain. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that those problems notwithstanding we shall continue to lobby for the regular and unfettered access to aid which is vital to the people in Darfur and elsewhere if the situation arises.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, do not the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, underline the urgency of the peace agreement? In addition to the 0.5 million people who have been displaced since February this year, some 7,000 in Dafur have died and 300 villages have been razed to the ground. What discussions has the Minister had with her counterparts in the US Administration about the lifting of sanctions if the peace agreement is settled? What transitional aid will then be provided by the US and ourselves in those circumstances?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, obviously, we have a great deal of contact with the United States. There is no specific US peace initiative as such, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is aware. However, our allies in the United States want to complement the arrangements that are already in place. There is obviously a UN role, and, as the noble Lord will know, there is also an EU role in looking at what is happening on the ground.
The United States has taken a close interest in what has happened. The noble Lord may know that Secretary of State Powell demonstrated United States support by visiting the peace talks on 22nd October. The points I raise about implementation and reviewing
954
the position once a peace has been settled and what can then be done in terms of aid will be pertinent to raise early in the new year.

Higher Education: Tuition Fees
3.8 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have developed their policy on the issue of undergraduates' contributions to the cost of their tuition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, we propose to allow higher education providers to charge tuition fees of up to £3,000 per year, subject to approval of an access agreement by the Office for Fair Access. From 2006–07, the requirement to pay up-front fees will be abolished; graduates will be able to repay fee loans through the graduate contribution scheme.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that clear and informative Answer. First, I declare an interest as a member of the council of Sussex University, where we are in principle supporting the idea of contributions to tuition fees being paid after graduation out of salary. Will the Minister look at two particular points? First, will she look at increasing the maintenance grant in order to give more help to academically qualified students coming from lower income families? Secondly, will she look at improving the tax status of donations to universities so that in the American manner some of the newer and younger universities in particular might be able to increase their endowment funds out of which bursaries can be granted?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his overall support. On his second point, my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will look at all the ways in which they can enhance the opportunities of going to university.
On the maintenance grant, the noble Lord will probably know that from the academic year 2004–05 we are bringing back a maintenance grant for our poorer students, which will be on top of the normal maintenance grant and will be worth up to £1,000. We believe that that is a contribution. In our discussions on the arrangements with OFFA we shall consider maintenance grants too.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, are the Government aware of the huge communication difficulty with students from poorer families who

955
come from a strongly debt-aversive culture? The media appear to have grabbed this ball and the Government need to get it back and get the message across.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. He has made such a statement to me on several occasions. It is a point well made. In ensuring that we offer real opportunities to all our students it is important that they understand the difference between what we are proposing and the perception of what we are proposing. For the first time they will not pay fees up front; they will be able to pay them back later. Of course, they will repay them only once they are earning £15,000 plus. I accept that we have more to do to communicate that message.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that by shifting the burden of fees from an up-front payment to a post-graduation payment the Government are, in effect, incurring considerable loans that will subsidise universities? Such loans will amount to about £30 billion. What will be the cost to Her Majesty's Government of servicing those loans?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it will be contingent on how many students take out the loans. Perhaps I may give an example that I hope will assist the House. If 50 per cent of higher education institutes charge £3,000 and 50 per cent charge the standard fee, and if 80 per cent of students take out those fee loans, the loan that would be advanced would be between £1,040 million and £1,075 million and the cost to Government would be £415 million.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the needs of mature students will be considered? They loom very large; they number perhaps a third of the student body of some universities. Does my noble friend agree that they have been casualties of recent policies and tend to be excluded in discussions on this matter?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We do not focus on them enough. I shall personally ponder that point as I am aware that I do not talk much about mature students. Many mature students are part of our part-time student cohort. We are introducing opportunities for part-time students to have assistance with their fees and costs.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, on past record, the quantum of funding from Government plus the tuition fee has not resulted in a discernible increase in income for the universities. What guarantee can the noble Baroness give that the income from the proposed £3,000 top-up fees will be truly additional?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have set out our future spending plans for universities. We are well aware that the contributions that the universities seek come from the state and, of course, from those who benefit from universities. I can give that assurance. In determining one's position on such
956
issues it is important to consider what universities are looking for. They are looking for a clear recognition of their needs from the Government and I believe that the Government understand that well. But they also want to ensure that the additional income that they can receive from the additional fees is, in a sense, available to spend. Within the arrangements that we are considering and within the terms of OFFA, we shall ensure that universities have the kind of autonomy that they wish to have.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of East London. Are the Government aware of the HEFC proposal that will take more than £1 million away from modern universities that serve people from racial minorities and that that will affect four out of five universities in the London area?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not aware of the specific point that the noble Lord makes in terms of the London universities. We are very keen to ensure that we have active participation by the university sector to ensure that we have the highest possible calibre of students. We recognise that some of our students need to be supported by better communication, as the right reverend Prelate said, and by other factors to attend university. I believe that is the fund to which the noble Lord refers and we are keen to see it supported by all universities.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, even before the introduction of any tuition fees, the student loan is so far from maintaining students as to create a severe inequity in terms of parental bank balances between students already at university, to the extent that perhaps one should advise those estranged from their parents not to go to university at all? Is she further aware that putting additional debt on students can be only an incentive to go for only high-salaried jobs and would be nothing but an obstacle to further teacher recruitment?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Earl's point about students estranged from their parents. It is important that we find ways of encouraging all students who wish to go to university to do so. I shall pick up that point in writing and seek clarification from the noble Earl.
On high-salaried jobs, we have said that those who do not earn salaries of £15,000 plus will not pay back anything. That does not have a penalty attached to it. I am pleased to say that our teaching staff are able to earn substantially more than that.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords—
Lord Ackner: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, who has been trying to ask a question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, despite what the Minister says and despite what the Government say and do, does the noble Baroness agree that in the present circumstances there are literally hundreds of young people who are capable of taking a university degree who will simply not be able to afford to go to university? Unless there is a fundamental change, a very serious situation will arise affecting young people who wish to go to university.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, at the moment having to pay fees up-front is a deterrent for young people who may wish to go to university and it is something that they have to consider. The fundamental point relating to our proposals is that no one pays until after they have completed the course and the fee repayment is contingent on earning the salary that I have identified of £15,000 plus. I believe that that is a realistic way of accepting that we need to fund universities properly and well. We need to look to those who will benefit from university provision, but we need to do it in a way that accepts and appreciates that we want people to benefit when they feel they are able to do so.

Disabled Children's Services: Audit Commission Report
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they will respond to the recommendations in the Audit Commission report on services for disabled children.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we shall take account of the recommendations in the Audit Commission's report when developing and implementing government policy and programmes. In particular, through the development of the Children's National Service Framework, we shall address the main recommendation to set national standards for disabled children's services.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply. The report is most welcome and very challenging. Can the Minister say what will be the role of the Minister for Children in monitoring progress of the recommendations?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Minister of State for Children, my right honourable friend Margaret Hodge, and I form the directorate in the department responsible for our policies on implementation from the Green Paper. In that capacity, the Minister for Children will look carefully at the Audit Commission report and will determine the bringing together of our services for all children, with specific
958
reference to children who need additional support to ensure that they are working together effectively.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, given the Audit Commission's comment that despite some extra initiatives,
"Disabled young people and their families are, in general, poorly served and remain at risk of social exclusion",
can the Minister say how they intend to ensure that all those responsible in future consult disabled children and their parents on priorities and individual needs? What is being done to ensure that those who are in contact with disabled families are trained in good inter-personal and communication skills?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has raised some important points that arose from the Audit Commission report. I pay tribute to the work that was done. One way in which we have been addressing the needs of disabled children is by inviting Francine Bates, who is the chief executive of Contact A Family—a charity that I am sure is well known to your Lordships for the work that it does on working together, communications and training, which are so important. That external working group has been feeding into the national service framework, which is now a joint Department of Health/Department for Education and Skills initiative. Those issues will be carefully considered in that work.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall past reports by the commission on disablement services that have been perceptive, accurate and practical? Does she agree that the Audit Commission carries out a most useful function in that field?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that the Audit Commission has played an important part in considering the issues that affect some of our most vulnerable children.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most damning parts of the report states that it is those who shout loudest and in the right ears who get help? What short-term measures does she have in mind to ensure that everyone knows quickly what they are entitled to, which is one of the major considerations in the report?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Lord may know, one thing that I am pleased that we have been able to do in the earlier pilots is to provide families with disabled children with information on precisely what kind of service they can and should expect. As we roll that out, it will make asubstantial difference—especially for families with children who are very young and have a disability with

959
which the family is not familiar. That is a fundamental, crucial part of what we will be doing.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of my interest in this policy area. How do the new children's trusts relate to the services for disabled children—especially in regard to the co-ordination of those services?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend's long interest in the issue. Children's trusts will indeed be important, because they will have the key role of bringing together services for disabled children and their families. We have launched a number of pathfinders. I am pleased to say that most of them include services for children with special educational needs and disabilities; a significant minority of them focuses specifically on those children. As part of the evaluation of children's trusts, we shall be directly considering what impact they have had on the lives of children with disabilities.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, has there been a verifiable improvement in the quality and specific detail of statements for children with special educational needs?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I find that a difficult question to answer because I am not entirely certain what the noble Baroness is looking for. What I can say about statements is that parents are beginning to have more confidence in a system that means that they can find the right quality of support for their child or children within the settings that they want—not always requiring a statement; but where a statement is necessary, they are able to determine its value more effectively. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, the report states that at present we have a unique opportunity to improve policy for children. We also have the service framework; but there is a huge gap between the service framework for children and that for disabled adults. What will the Minister do at this unique time to consider the long-standing problem of young children who move from children's to adult services, often losing themselves in between?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as always, the noble Baroness puts her finger on an important area: the transition from childhood to adult life. As well as preparing our children for that adult life, we must recognise how difficult that transition can be. For that reason, that will form part of our work on the special educational needs action programme, but also of the work that I and colleagues perform in our links with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that services—for example, the Learning and Skills Council—effectively recognise the needs of those young people.

US Ships Decommissioning: Environment Agency Role
3.25 p.m
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What role the Environment Agency played in approving the decommissioning of United States ships by Able UK in Hartlepool.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Environment Agency, as the competent authority, has now made clear to the contracting parties and to relevant United States authorities that shipment of the vessels to Hartlepool cannot be completed consistent with international rules and community law.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but is he not as concerned as many of us that the Environment Agency originally gave approval for the work to be done by Able UK and saw no need for it not to be given? It was not until Friends of the Earth raised the matter in the High Court that the action was changed and withdrawal was enforced. Does the Minister accept that that reflects badly on the Environment Agency? Why did it happen in the first place?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I explained the last time we discussed the matter, the Environment Agency is one of many agencies with a role in the matter. It stated right at the beginning to the American authorities that some permissions that would be required for Able UK to carry out the work were either not in place or were disputed. It wrote to the American authorities in that regard. It is now clear that without those authorisations the work could not be completed at Hartlepool consistent with national and international law.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is remarkable—if reports are to be believed—that the Environment Agency could issue a licence to Able UK to undertake work that required either a dry dock or dry-dock equivalent facilities? Having issued that licence, a few weeks later it was required to rescind the licence— in part because those facilities apparently did not exist. Has the Environment Agency forgotten to use its eyes?
Lord Whitty: The trouble is that different permissions are involved here. We all accept that this is a complex and difficult case. The Environment Agency recognised that the facilities and skills available at Able UK were of the highest quality for carrying out the work. The issue of a waste management licence was, however, reviewed, and the licence now appears to be invalid. That is why the Environment Agency states that the task cannot be completed in line with legal obligations. There is also the issue, which has been the matter of court proceedings, of planning permission from Hartlepool Borough Council.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, were the discussions simply between the Environment

961
Agency and the US agency, or did the Government as a whole take a line on the matter? If so, was that because they believed that the technical capacity did not exist in the United States to undertake that work, despite its having an Act that forbids the export of such hazardous material? Further, where did the Government imagine that the hazardous waste would go, given that the UK is currently reducing its number of hazardous waste sites from 80 to only 15 to serve the whole of the country?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, several different points were somewhat mixed up in the noble Baroness's questions. The Environment Agency is the competent authority. It took the view—and warned the American authorities—that some permissions were not in place. The Environment Agency was convinced that Able UK had the basic facilities to carry out the work, but there was waste management action that had yet to be completed.
As for whether the Government were engaged, no, we were not then, at Ministerial or official level, because the Environment Agency is the competent authority. Because of the difficulties that we are now in, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has in the past few days been in contact with the Americans and the various authorities dealing with the issue. We have told the Americans that it will not be possible to complete that voyage and task, and are now considering the consequences.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the work should have been undertaken in the United States? Nevertheless, does he agree that we in the United Kingdom have the capability to undertake that difficult and dangerous disposal and decontamination work, and that it is therefore feasible for such work to be undertaken here? Does he further agree that as the alternative is probably the diversion of work to India or China, for example, where environmental and health and safety precautions are probably inadequate, it may sometimes be morally right for this country to take on such work?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. We have a very good facility at which there will be demand for scrapping and recycling ships, particularly tankers, over the next few years, and where the United Kingdom could provide the expertise and, therefore, work and income to the UK. The American Government recognised that there was a capacity constraint in the US. On this occasion—further to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—they sought tenders from overseas as well as the United States. They gave the first contract to Able UK, but they have since given contracts to American contractors to carry out work on other ships.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, what communication are my noble friend's department and the Environment Agency having with the environment
962
unit in the Commission? I declare an interest, as I once worked for the environment commission. What particular communication was there in this case?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Commission authorities have been kept informed on the issue. Some of the legal issues relate to EU law applicable in this country, so the European authorities have been kept informed. But the contract is between an American authority and a UK company; therefore, the main questions have been dealt with by the UK authorities, mainly the Environment Agency.

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill
3.32 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 1.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 have been pre-empted by the House's agreement to Amendment No. 4.I will therefore call Amendment No. 7.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
Page 109, line 17, leave out "area specified under sub-paragraph (l)(a)" and insert "constitution may specify one or more areas as areas for public constituencies, each of which"
Page 109, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) An individual providing care in pursuance of a contract (including a contract of employment), or as a volunteer for a voluntary organisation, does not come within sub-paragraph (1)(c).
A voluntary organisation is a body, other than a public or local authority, the activities of which are not carried on for profit."
Page 109, line 20, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15:
Page 109, line 26, leave out "staff constituency" and insert "corporation by virtue of sub-paragraph (l)(b)"
Page 109, line 31, leave out from "where" to second "for" in line 32 and insert "he exercises functions for the purposes of the corporation as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, he has done so continuously"
Page 109, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
Page 110, line 2, at end insert—
"Constituencies
(1)Members of a public benefit corporation are referred to as follows—

(a)those who live in an area specified in the constitution as an area for any public constituency are referred to collectively as a public constituency,

(b)those who come within paragraph 3(1)(b) are referred to collectively as the staff constituency,

(c)those who come within paragraph 3(1)(c) are referred to collectively as the patients' constituency.

(2)A person who is a member of one constituency may not while that membership continues be a member of any other constituency.
(3) A person who comes within paragraph 3(1)(b) may not become or continue as a member of any constituency other than the staff constituency."
On Question, amendments agreed to
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 110, line 2, at end insert—
"The constitution may make provision that any member of staff who is employed by the public benefit corporation at the date of election of the board of governors shall be deemed to be a member of the public benefit corporation unless he opts not to be a member."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall put my noble and learned friend out of his misery by speaking to Amendment No. 16, which relates to the membership of foundation trusts. I declare an interest as an honorary adviser to the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust because the question has arisen from the discussions of several NHS trusts in Birmingham that wish to seek foundation trust status in the first or second wave.
A difference of view has been expressed in your Lordships' House about the desirability of the number of members in each foundation trust. Some noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, believe that the numbers should be kept as low as possible; others have expressed doubt that each foundation trust will reach a membership of 10,000. But in Birmingham we have much greater ambitions than that. The hope of the University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust is that all its staff, and all patients who have been treated by the trust over the past two or three years, will become members of the foundation trust.
My amendment is designed to probe the Government on whether it would be possible in the constitution to have a scheme that pre- supposed that all staff and patients were members of the foundation trust unless they opted out. I stress that I wish only for foundation trusts to have that discretion. Many of the other trusts applying for foundation trust status to which I have spoken would not use that option. Trusts in Birmingham have thought carefully about the issue and wish to have a strong membership base.
Concerns were raised earlier about entryism. The biggest protection against entryism by the undesirable people that my noble friend Lord Lipsey mentioned as potentially becoming members and being elected to the governing body is to have a large membership base. The proposal by Birmingham trusts is imaginative. I hope that, in the fullness of time, they can be given the option of an opt-out system. I am not sure at what stage we can reach that in legislation, given the vote this morning. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify the situation of university staff who work in trusts but are employed on an honorary contract by the university to provide a major clinical service? Is it envisaged that they will be included or excluded under the terms of his amendment? In some
964
major university hospitals associated with medical schools, the employment contracts of many key clinicians are lodged with the university.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is a very good point. I understand and have every sympathy with it. The answer depends on how those people would be treated in the Bill as it stands. If honorary staff from universities are treated in the Bill as staff for the purposes of becoming a member of the staff constituency, my amendment would apply to them, too, but it depends on how my noble friend responds to the noble Baroness's specific question. Doctors on honorary contracts with NHS trusts should certainly be considered eligible.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as usual, my noble friend Lord Hunt argues, in Amendments Nos. 16 and 20, that NHS foundation trusts should be allowed flexibility to have membership on an opt-out basis. I wish to respond to both amendments. He presents his case persuasively.
I share his aim of ensuring that the membership of NHS foundation trusts is large and fully representative. Ensuring that all staff and a defined group of past patients are included as members can help to achieve that goal. As he says, that is protection against entryism. I anticipate that many foundation trusts will want to consider using an opt-out approach. I agree that there might be some provision to allow them discretion to do so, but we will need to consider carefully how best to provide for that alternative approach. In particular, we want to ensure that people who may not wish to participate as members are not placed under any obligation or disadvantage. We are not unsympathetic to the principles behind my noble friend's amendments and we would like to consider how best to achieve their objectives with a view to bringing forward government amendments at a later stage.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what is, again, a most constructive response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 21 not moved.]
Lord Lipsey Lord Lipsey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 110, line 10, leave out second "a" and insert "an advisory"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, with this amendment I will speak to the other amendments standing in my name—not all of which bear the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—because they are a package. It will be a quicker way of getting through what I want to say.
This morning I made a case in the strongest possible terms for the danger that I see in the present governance arrangements. The House has sent that back to the Commons and we must hope that honourable Members there reconsider the issue. However, it may return to us and we will then face a

965
difficult decision. We are all extremely reluctant to overrule the elected House however much we may feel that they err.
With this group of amendments I am taking a different approach. If I were organising the governance structure I would not be starting from here, but from an entirely different point. However, we are where we are and I ask myself whether it is possible to devise a minimal set of arrangements whereby the worst of the dangers that I tried to point out to the House this morning could be avoided. Could we table amendments that it would not be unreasonable to expect the Government to consider and accept, but, at the same time, would protect particularly against the concern of that highly motivated tiny minority of extremists or fanatics who could take over our hospitals? That is the purpose of my Amendment No. 22 and the others that insert the word "advisory"—Amendments Nos. 32, 55, 60 and 65.I will introduce them with as much brevity as I can.
Inserting the word "advisory" every time "Board of Governors" appears is barely a change in policy. The Minister most helpfully gave a description of what the board of governors is supposed to do, which was jolly close to the description that I would have given. However it would be helpfully clarified if the board were clearly labelled "advisory".
Incidentally, I do not think that being advisory is something that should be downgraded in any way. When there is a strong election in which lots of people vote and there is a strong mandate, it would be a mad board of directors that chose to ignore that opinion. However, clarifying the board's advisory position—and Her Majesty's Opposition have tabled amendments that would also have that effect—would help.
The amendments would also broaden the base of the board of governors. At the moment, the Bill lays down that the majority should be elected. I can see a role for some elections to the board, but if we are to make sense of the provision, I would like the board of governors to have the widest possible stakeholder approach. For example, I would give particular importance to having substantial representation for the relevant primary care trusts, which would help to deal with the worst of all the problems in this Bill—that of removing hospitals from the primary care trust remit just when most policy aims to increase the role of primary care trusts in the setting of health priorities. I would like to see strong representation from the PCTs.
I would like to see substantial local government representation, a range of staff interests and rather less representation for elected members. My Amendment No. 32 is very flexible and would provide for between two members and up to one half of the board being elected. Different people would experiment with different amounts. That is a stronger, wider board that is not just reliant on the vagaries of elections and their turnouts.
Amendment No. 55 would remove the power of the governors to hire and fire the non-executives and the chairman. Again, such power could be extraordinarily dangerous in the hands of a few people who turn up. It
966
would mean that the chairman of the board of directors and the non-executives would not be getting on with the job of running a hospital, they would be looking over their shoulders all the time to see if they were going to be voted out. The Bill protects against that happening by requiring a 75 per cent majority vote of the board of directors. I do not disagree with that, but that provision is vitiated by another provision that I wish to tackle— that the pay of the non-executives will be set by the board of governors. If I wanted to get rid of all the non-executive directors, I would not try to get a 75 per cent majority to fire them. I would simply move a resolution to reduce their pay to zero. It would be passed by a simple majority and would soon get rid of them. Then the extremists and fascists could take over their places. Amendment No. 60 would provide that the pay would in future be set by,
"the board of directors in consultation with",
the board of governors. The consultation is important.
My final amendment. Amendment No. 65, provides that rather than having a single person chairing both bodies, there should be a separate chair for the board of governors and for the executives. It is a more controversial proposal, but I think that there is a great advantage to separating those bodies. Being good at chairing an advisory body—collecting the voices, making them articulate and so forth—and being good at chairing a managing body of directors requires a substantially different set of skills. I am not saying that it is impossible to combine both, but on the whole we would do better to separate the two roles.
The Government may not necessarily welcome the set of amendments, but they would cope with the worst problems in the clause. Ministers will be tempted to say "no", and this afternoon I am ready to test the opinion of the House on any amendments for which I am not convinced of the reason for that "no". However, following this morning's debate, I say to Ministers that, even if they manage to reverse what happened in this House this morning—and they may—the Bill must be changed. We cannot simply lie down before the elected majority. If the Bill were a manifesto commitment, a Green Paper Bill, White Paper Bill or a consulted-on Bill, it would be different. But this House would be quite within its legitimate rights to refuse to accept this Bill—even if it is sent back to us at the end of the day—if the Government do not heed the remarks that were made, especially from the Cross Benches, but from all quarters of this House this morning in criticism of the detail of the governance procedures. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I would like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said about the governors being advisory. I received a letter this morning that I expect other noble Lords also received from the Local Government Association. It is very concerned that plans in the Bill, should it survive, would lead to a duplication of the role of local councillors as directly elected community representatives. The association feels that two conflicting pieces of

967
advice could come from the electorate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave one vision of an electorate of many thousands voting about something in the case of one hospital trust. That would be extremely difficult for people to understand alongside local government, which perhaps has a similar electorate and might express a different view, so I think that the noble Lord has a very good point.
The Government should try, if they persist with this clause of the Bill, to think of ways of getting it to work better having listened to the debate that we had this morning. The noble Lord has been very constructive in making this suggestion, and I back him.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend. He spoke very thoughtfully. I know that he has given these matters a good deal of attention. I cannot agree with him that the right solution to the issues surrounding governance is to reduce the board of governors to the role of advisory council. I do not believe that that stands any chance of success in terms of ending the micro-management of the health service from the centre unless one transfers accountability. That means one has to have an electoral process. One also has to have a strong board of governors who are responsible for the essential running of the organisation.
Noble Lords will know that I do not believe that the present governance structure is the right one. We should build on it. If I had the opportunity to start with a clean sheet, I would have undoubtedly made the governing body the sovereign body. I would then have had an executive management board accountable to the governing body for the day-to-day running of the organisation. I would have rested sovereignty in the governing body itself. In the Bill at the moment is a board of directors which is the sovereign decision-making organisation within the trust, and an elected board of governors which is given certain responsibilities and powers. We shall later see whether we can amend that to make the powers more focused.
The fact is that my noble friend's amendments would reduce the board of governors to a consultative body. I do not believe that that would work. If there is a strong membership base and people put their names forward for election, engage in the hustings and are elected, they would not expect to attend a governing body to find that their only role is to proffer advice. They must be given a stronger role. If they are not, there will be trouble because the elected members of the governing body will have the legitimacy which is provided by election.
I understand my noble friend's position, but I would be much more convinced if he were making proposals to give the governing body more power rather than seeking to take it away. I believe that we are all agreed that the governance structure is not ideal. My noble friend has said that the Joseph Rowntree review of democracy and governance will enable further revision. I believe that we should continue with what we have and seek to clarify the powers of the board of governors. I invite noble Lords to look at some
968
amendments which I have tabled later in this group which seek to do that. To reduce the governing body to an advisory council would be a mistake.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate on a schedule which no longer exists. These Benches support the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I have enjoyed the bi-play on the Government Benches. The common theme appears to be "I would not have started from here, guv'nor" which is always a very edifying place to start. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has been fighting a splendid rearguard action and I am very surprised that he did not go into the Opposition Lobbies at the time of the clause stand part debate. There are some fundamental issues here.
Perhaps I may explain why I have added my name to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, dealing with the advisory aspect of the governing board and the separation of the chairmen of the board of directors and the board of governors. I am concerned about clarity on the one hand and governance on the other. It is right that we should clarify the role of the governing board. One of the running sores throughout Schedule 1 is the fact that the governing body appears to have a very nebulous role. In a very straightforward and simple way, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has inserted something which gives greater clarity. It may be that in the best of all possible worlds one might want a two-tier structure with governance at the top in the way the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggests. But going with the unfortunate grain of Schedule 1, I suspect that "advisory" is as good as it gets in these circumstances.
At the moment the governing body is neither fish nor fowl. At least the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, has defined it as a fish and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would prefer it as a fowl. But there is the benefit of clarity. As regards governance, there is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is right. In all seriousness, one cannot have the same chairman for the board of governors and the board of directors. That means when the two bodies have a disagreement there is a conflict for the chairman and all kinds of other consequences flow.
I thought that the scenarios which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, put forward were a masterclass in machiavellian organisational conspiracy. I would not like to be in an organisation where I crossed the noble Lord because I feel quite certain that he would make sure I was ejected fairly swiftly.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, this may not be fish or fowl, but a real red herring. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is very convincing. Let us think about how governance works. Many noble Lords have sat on various boards. They will know that if the various layers of authority do not understand the nature of their responsibility—and if the board is to be elected it will expect to make certain decisions—they will be in deep trouble. I dislike these provisions intensely because I

969
believe that they will make for extraordinary difficulties in managing the health service in future. To make the board advisory can only complicate the situation even more. I am all for trying to strengthen the nature of the board, getting its role clear and moving forward.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I believe that I am destined never to satisfy my two noble friends on some of these issues. I shall have to be phlegmatic about that as I proceed through the Bill. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for almost endorsing my earlier exposition on the role of a board of governors. He will recall that I said that its role went beyond being advisory. It has an important role which goes significantly beyond that of advice. That includes the appointment of the auditor of the NHS foundation trust and the non-executive directors. I suggest that is significantly more than the functions of an advisory body.
It would be misleading to refer to such a board as an advisory board, which would occur if the noble Lord's amendments were accepted. We shall later debate Amendment No. 96 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt which concerns a forward business plan. I do not want to anticipate that.
I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Lipsey about the constraints on the board of governors about which he is clearly worried. There is an alternative approach in some ways in Amendment No. 24, but it is unnecessary. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured that the Bill already provides that the board of directors must carry out the functions of the corporation and that these functions cannot be delegated. That provides them, and only them, with the power to run the day-to-day operations of the trust. That is one reason why we believe that Amendment No. 24 is unnecessary, but it is also a bulwark against many of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I say this as gently as I can. We respect the noble Lord's expertise on electoral systems and we have tried to respond to that. But on the issue of governance, we do not believe that he has got it right and we would not support the amendments describing the board of governors as an advisory board.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. The trouble is that power does not always follow constitutions or laws. Although the law may say that management is for the board of management, when sitting with a group of people who can sack someone, one finds that power lies in a slightly different place. I believe that the shareholders in BSkyB have found that Rupert Murdoch was in power despite the fact that he did not have a majority of the votes. There are often cases of that kind.
I cannot say that my noble friend's reply satisfies me. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, put the matter very well by saying that it was a choice of fish and fowl. I have more sympathy with my noble friend Lord Hunt's fish than with the Government's fudge, although personally I remain persuaded that fowl would be better.
970
I am extremely tempted to seek the opinion of the House. I shall not, simply because further discussions have to take place about the issue. I hope all noble Lords, whatever their position on the amendments, will agree that it is clearly not right at the moment and that deep down the Government agree with that. We have to sort the matter. By having further votes at this stage I would not be assisting the process of sorting. I hope that we can all leave the Government with the message that they do not have it right yet and that there must be changes before we can go forward on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Page 110, line 15, leave out "the public constituency or the staff" and insert "a"
Page 110, line 17, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 110, line 18, at end insert—
"(6) The constitution may provide for the sub-division of the public constituency into different geographical areas and categories to ensure that taken as a whole, those members of the board of governors elected by the public constituency will be representative of those eligible for membership of the public constituency."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 aims to give foundation trusts the opportunity to sub-divide the public constituency into different electoral areas. I think that my noble friend's Amendment No. 7 has taken care of the issue of geographical sub-divisions. I am quite happy, and very much welcome that.
There is another issue for foundation trusts. My noble friend Lord Lipsey spoke about the need to get the wider spectrum of stakeholders on to the governing body. I very much agree with that. Clause 6(2)(b) regarding membership makes clear that in authorising a foundation trust, the regulator has to be concerned that,
"taken as a whole the actual membership of the applicant's public constituency will be representative of those eligible for such membership".
My contention is that, if that is right for the membership, it must be right for the governing body. One would expect that the elements of the elected public constituency would reflect the actual membership of the foundation trust. My amendment seeks to allow foundation trusts discretion to propose a scheme of election allowing it to categorise membership into different categories—perhaps gender or age group. It might ensure that the ethnic diversity of a particular membership was reflected in the governing body.
Clearly, that discretion cannot be drafted in Parliament; it cannot be enunciated at national level. One has to allow for it at local level. I hope that the principle I have enunciated in my amendment finds

971
support in the House and that my noble friend will be prepared to give this issue some consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I briefly seek clarification from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Does the amendment mean that a person could not be a member of more than one foundation trust, because, if the constituencies are divided into geographical areas, people would either belong to one or the other? I was uncertain about that and about whether it would need to be done in collaboration with other foundation trusts so that the lines were clearly drawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Well, my Lords, the Minister may want to respond to the issue of how the geographical splitting down of electoral constituencies impacts upon different trusts. Speaking for myself, I do not have any problem about individuals belonging to different foundation trusts. Indeed, I would welcome that. If someone had an interest in mental health or in acute care services, one would welcome them joining a mental health foundation trust or an acute services foundation trust.
I think that the geographical issue has been well satisfied by my noble friend's Amendment No. 7. The issue on which I seek some clarification from my noble friend is on ensuring that the mixture of people elected to the governing body reflects the actual membership.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend's acknowledgement that our Amendment No. 7 fits the bill, so to speak, on a geographical subdivision. We have some nervousness about the aspect of my noble friend's amendment which allows for sub-division of the public constituency into different categories. We are not sure that it is appropriate to allow that kind of sub-division. First, there is no real description of what type of categories are intended— for example, are we talking about age, disease group, gender or ethnicity—and no limits are placed on what is acceptable.
Secondly, allowing such categorisation would raise issues about what would happen for members who were fitted into more than one category. There are many complexities around that issue. Without making any promises whatever—and I do not want to raise false hopes in the noble Lord—I am happy to go away and think more about the matter. Certainly, our initial thoughts are that that is extraordinarily difficult, and certainly it is not easy to do in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised the issue of geographical areas. She asked whether a person could be a member of more than one constituency. Our understanding is that they can be a member of only one constituency for each NHS foundation trust.
My noble friend has been on a bit of a roll recently, so I hope that, against that background, he will be willing to withdraw his amendment and allow us to think again about the matter more quietly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for agreeing to look at the matter again.
972
Of course I understand the complexities. We now have in the Bill his amendment allowing the Government to make regulations, which will help to clarify the electoral systems. All I seek is for foundation trusts to be allowed discretion to deal with the issues and to make proposals, which of course would have to be in line with the regulations that he intends to bring in later. I am most grateful to him for his constructive response. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 not moved]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 110, line 33, leave out "public constituency" and insert "members of the corporation other than the members of the staff constituency"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 110, line 40, leave out "the area specified under paragraph 3(1)(a)" and insert "an area specified in the constitution as the area for a public constituency"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, if Amendment No. 38 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendment No. 39.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 111, line 1, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 2 and insert "An elected member of the board of governors"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved. ]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 111, line 4, leave out from "But" to end of line 5 and insert "such a member ceases to hold office if he ceases to be a member of the corporation"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 46 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 47:
Page 111, line 27, leave out from "directors," to end of line 28 and insert "including the chief executive, finance director and a medical practitioner (or in the case of a dental trust, a dental practitioner) and a nurse who shall both be registered on the relevant professional registers"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has tabled Amendment No. 50 which enables the amendments that we have sought to be enacted. I want to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord for acceding to the request. I have prepared the most uplifting and arresting speech. Noble Lords will be delighted that I am not going to give it, but I should like to say thank you.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 111, line 27, after second "executive" insert "(and accounting officer)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 111, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) One of the executive directors is to be a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist (within the meaning of the Dentists Act 1984 (c. 24)); and another is to be a registered nurse or registered midwife."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 111, line 33, leave out "the public constituency" and insert "a public constituency or the patients' constituency"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 112, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
"( ) The appointment of a chief executive requires the approval of the board of governors."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will have become tired of me talking about the role and powers of the board of governors. Indeed, I am putting on my anorak to have a few more attempts at the issue. I wish that the board of governors had been given more power, but it is important that it is given the right powers. As the Bill stands, I am not sure that it is right that appointment or removal of the executive director of a board of directors should require the approval of a majority of the board of governors voting at a general meeting.
A practical issue is that if that has to be done at a general meeting, it would be very difficult for any organisation to manage. First, a special meeting would have to be called to make an appointment or to remove a person. Secondly, the removal or appointment of executive directors is not really a matter for the board of governors. The people who should know what is required in relation to the executive directors ought to be the non-executives on the board of directors. That is what they are there for.
As regards the dismissal of an executive director, that must be a matter that rests with the non-executives on the board of directors. There is a special case in relation to chief executives. Given their important role, it is right and proper that the board of governors should be asked to ratify that appointment. They should not be asked to approve the dismissal of the chief executive. That, too, should be a matter for the executive directors. I know that my amendment would
974
be very welcome in the first wave of foundation trusts. It clears up a problem that many have foreseen in this area. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I appreciate that we are speaking to a non-existent schedule. I apologise for my rather late intervention. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. If we are to get anywhere with foundation trusts in any form whatever, it must be correct that the board of directors is responsible for the appointment of the chief executive. In the very unfortunate circumstances where the board does not think that the chief executive is measuring up, the board should also make that decision. Therefore, I strongly support what has been said. I hope that the Government will listen.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we never tire of listening to my noble friend Lord Hunt, whether or not he has his anorak on. As regards Amendments Nos. 58 and 67, we have listened. We accept the logic of his position, as supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. We are prepared to accept both Amendments Nos. 58 and 67.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 65 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 112, line 32, at beginning insert "Sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 15(3) do not apply to the appointment of any initial non-executive director in pursuance of this paragraph and"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 112, line 32, leave out from "of" to end of line 33 and insert "the initial chief executive of the corporation in pursuance of sub-paragraph (5)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 112, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) a register of interests of the members of the board of governors"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
Page 112, line 43, at end insert "the members of the board of governors and of"
Page 113, line 1, leave out from beginning to "available" and insert "A public benefit corporation is to make the following documents"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 113, line 19, at end insert—
"( ) An officer of the Audit Commission may be the auditor if he is appointed by the board with the agreement of the Commission."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 79 and 80:
Page 113, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) Where an officer of the Audit Commission is appointed as auditor, the Commission is to charge the public benefit corporation such fees for his services as will cover the full cost of providing them."
Page 113, line 28, leave out from "directors" to end of line 29 and insert "as an audit committee to perform such monitoring, reviewing and other functions as are appropriate"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 113, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) In this paragraph "the Audit Commission" means the Audit Commission for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 88:
Page 114, leave out line 12.
Page 114, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) The constitution is to provide for the functions of the corporation under this paragraph to be delegated to the accounting officer."
Page 114, line 19, leave out "and the registrar of companies"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 114, line 22, leave out "its public constituency" and insert "any public constituency and (if there is one) of the patients' constituency"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 114, line 27, leave out "him" and insert "it"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 91, I shall speak also to the raft of amendments grouped with it. We have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in another place and in Committee here in support of the establishment of the office of the independent regulator with a board structure rather than as a single office-holder. I made a commitment at the previous stage that, if the Better Regulation Task Force report on independent regulators recommended that a board structure was appropriate for that type of regulator, I would bring forward on Report suitable amendments to take account of the recommendations of the task force.
I am now honouring that commitment in the amendments grouped here to that effect. Noble Lords may be alarmed at the number of amendments required to achieve this, but I can give an assurance that the majority are simple consequential amendments that arise from changing the regulator from an individual to a body corporate with a board structure.
Some noteworthy changes are contained in Amendment No. 106, which sets out that the independent regulator must consist of a board of up to five members, including a chair and a deputy. The general and specific powers of the independent regulator are set out in Amendment No. 119, and the accounting requirements are set out in Amendment No. 128. Given that the government amendments have the desired effect of Amendments Nos. 99 and 103, I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister for taking on board the proposals advanced by myself and others in Committee and which were first mooted in another place. His amendments are welcome for all the reasons that we debated.
Perhaps I may pick up one issue only from our Committee proceedings: why are the Government insisting on not delegating to the NHS Appointments Commission the appointment of the regulator on first establishment? The Minister said that he envisaged that only a small proportion of national appointments would be made directly by the Secretary of State. Why should this be one of them? I wonder what that says to the outside world about the qualifications for the role of the regulator or, as he is described, the chairman of the board. The manner of appointment does not look good from that perspective. We need to know exactly why the NHS Appointments Commission, which was created expressly to avoid the suspicion or, indeed, the reality of any political bias, should not be tasked with that important appointment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my thanks to the Minister for responding to the amendments tabled in Committee seeking to appoint a board rather than an individual regulator and for accepting the reasons that were put forward, along with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force.
I wish simply to supplement what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, as regards the NHS Appointments Commission. Even if, in the view of the Government, the chairman has to be appointed by the Secretary of State, there is no reason why the other members of the board should be so appointed. Members on these Benches feel that all members of the board should be appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission, which would be open, transparent and the correct way to proceed. However, if there has to be an element of shying away from that position, then the Minister could at least undertake to consider whether members of the board other than the chairman should be appointed by the NHS Appointments Commission.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for that positive response. It is the Government's intention that the Secretary of State shall appoint the regulator on first establishment. Further, noble Lords are probably aware that the appointment process is well under way, which is a consideration.
In the future, the Secretary of State may delegate the appointment of holders of the office and any subsequent independent regulator to the NHS Appointments Commission; he has the power to do so. We have listened carefully to the points that have been made by noble Lords in this debate. Certainly it is well within the bounds of possibility that the concerns that have been expressed will be met.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he update the House on the appointment process for the regulator? What stage has it reached and has an appointment yet been made?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the appointment process is ongoing and has not yet been completed. I am not in a position to say any more than that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 unallocated.]
[Amendments Nos. 93 to 95 not moved.]
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 114, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
"( ) The document containing the information is to be prepared by the directors.
( ) In preparing the document the directors must have regard to the views of the board of governors."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I promise that this is my last word on the issue of governance on Report, although no doubt there will be opportunities over the coming two weeks for further discussion if the House of Commons does the right thing by the Bill.
Ideally, I would give the responsibility of approving the forward plan of the trust to the governing body. That would encapsulate a very proactive and proper role for the governing body in which, essentially, it would be asked to agree the strategic plans of the organisation. However, I understand that that is not possible because of the construct of the Bill. The board of directors has to take corporate responsibility for all that is done in the trust. Therefore to have given to the board of governors the absolute right of approval over the forward plan would not be consistent with the corporate responsibility of the board of directors.
What I have sought to convey in my amendment is a form of words which would still leave the final decision with the board of directors, but would also ensure that that board really had to listen and have regard to the views of the board of governors. That goes somewhat further than simply to consult and would give the board of governors a constructive role, while leaving
978
the actual decision on the forward plan with the board of directors. I hope that that commends itself to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I rise briefly simply to remark that I think that if the composition of the board of governors were right and did not have all the flaws that I have pointed out, then this would be an extremely good amendment. Certainly it provides a means of moving forward. In fact, the reconciliation is that if you had the right people on the board of governors—representatives of primary care trusts and so forth—it would be all the more important that regard should be given to their views than if the board is merely elected by a very small electorate.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are always willing to listen to good argument. My noble friend has done that and we are pleased to accept his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am most grateful. In response to my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I very much agree that we do want to attract a high quality membership to the board of governors; that must be the aim of all foundation trusts.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 97:
Leave out Schedule 1.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 1, line 11, leave out "an officer" and insert "a body corporate".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (2)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 101 to 105 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 115, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 15 and insert—
"Membership
(1) The regulator is to consist of a number of members (but not more than 5) appointed by the Secretary of State.
(2)One of the members is to be appointed as chairman and another as deputy chairman.
(3)The deputy chairman need not be appointed before the end of the period of six months beginning with the establishment of the regulator.
Tenure of office
(1) A person is to hold and vacate office as a member in accordance with the terms of his appointment.
(2)But—

(a) he may at any time resign his office by giving notice to the Secretary of State,

(b) the Secretary of State may at any time remove him from office on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour.

(3) A person is not to be appointed as a member for a period of more than four years.
(4) A person who ceases to be a member is eligible for re- appointment."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 108 to 119:
Page 115, line 17, leave out from "The" to end of line and insert "regulator is to pay to the chairman".
Page 115, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) The regulator is to pay to the members (other than the chairman) such travelling and other allowances as the Secretary of State may determine.".
Page 115, line 21, leave out "regulator" and insert "chairman"
Page 115, line 22, leave out second "Secretary of State" and insert "regulator"
Page 115, line 29, leave out "appoint" and insert "employ"
Page 115, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—"

(2)The terms may include—

(a) provision for the payment of pensions, gratuities or allowances to, or in respect of, any person who has ceased to be a member of the staff, or

(b) provision for contributions or payments towards such provision.

Superannuation ".
Page 115, line 38, leave out "regulator" and insert "chairman or as a member of the staff"
Page 115, line 40, leave out "regulator" and insert "chairman or employment as a member of the staff"
Page 116, line 3, at end insert "or 3(2)"
Page 116, line 3, at end insert—
"Procedure

(1)The regulator may regulate its own procedure and make any arrangements it considers appropriate for the discharge of its functions.

(2) The validity of any act of the regulator is not affected by any vacancy among the members or by any defect in the appointment of any member."

Page 116, line 6, leave out "a member of his staff" and insert— "

(a) the chairman or deputy chairman or any committee,

(b) any member of the staff,"

Page 116, line 7, at end insert—
"General powers
(1) The regulator may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or desirable for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise of its functions.
(2) That includes in particular—

(a)acquiring and disposing of property,

(b)entering into contracts,

(c)accepting gifts of property,

and co-operating with other public authorities.
Specific powers
(1) The regulator may with the consent of the Secretary of State borrow money temporarily by way of overdraft, but may not otherwise borrow money.
(2) The regulator may conduct, commission or assist the conduct of research."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 116, line 10, at end insert—
"( ) The regulator shall report each year in his annual report whether the contributions paid by the Secretary of State under paragraph 5 allow him to discharge his functions adequately."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 120 is on the theme of the independence of the regulator. We talked briefly about independence of appointment—a subject to which we shall doubtless return at a later stage. However, of perhaps more importance is de facto independence. A crucial element of independence in fact is whether or not the regulator has enough money to do the job properly.
When we debated this matter in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, helpfully suggested that the regulator would be able to include in his annual report his views on whether he had been adequately funded. That would now not be a "him" or a "her" but an "it". I was so taken with the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that I have paid her the compliment of drafting that into Amendment No. 120. I hope that the amendment's pedigree will lead to instant approval by the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 120, it may be helpful if I restate the Government's view that it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to set the level of contributions for the office of the regulator. There is no doubt that, as part of their negotiations with the Government about their funding, arm's-length bodies and non-departmental public bodies can, and do, raise concerns about what they are expected to deliver within that funding. Indeed, I believe that some often make public their concerns about funding.
There is clearly a place for robust discussions about what the regulator can be expected to deliver within funding levels, but that place is not in the annual report. In our view, the amendment would reduce the annual report of the regulator to the level of a political football, detracting from the real purpose of the report, which is to provide feedback to the public on the work of the regulator. We consider the amendment to be inappropriate.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has repudiated the suggestion made by his noble friend Lady Andrews. I shall, of course, think again about what he said, but I register my disappointment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 121 and 122:
Page 116, line 13, leave out "he" and insert "it"
Page 116, line 13, leave out "his" and insert "its"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 116, line 14, at end insert "and,
(b) prepare a report which provides an overall summary of accounts sent to it by NHS foundation trusts during the year."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 123, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 123 and 126. The Bill, as drafted, does not provide for the presentation of a summarised account of NHS foundation trusts to Parliament as that is normally carried out by an accounting officer. The independent regulator is not the accounting officer for NHS foundation trusts as he is not responsible for their expenditure or operational management. Instead, each NHS foundation trust has its own accounting officer, who is responsible for laying the trust's audited accounts before Parliament.
Therefore, we were concerned that requiring the independent regulator to present a summarised account of NHS foundation trusts to Parliament was potentially misleading. However, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, put forward a strong and persuasive argument for the importance of a summarised account of NHS foundation trusts in providing a financial overview across this new sector of the NHS. We therefore propose in Amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 126 that the independent regulator should prepare a report, summarising the accounts of NHS foundation trusts, to be submitted to Parliament alongside the regulator's annual report.
Given that we have tabled these amendments, which I believe have the intended effect of Amendment No. 127, I hope that the noble Baroness will not move that amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, my Amendment No. 127 in this group has clearly been overtaken by the amendments to which the Minister has just spoken. I am pleased that the noble Lord has been converted to the idea of summarised accounts. We have always viewed them as an important element of the accountability of the foundation trust sector to Parliament.
I do not want to sound ungrateful but I hope that the Minister will be prepared to look again at the precise wording of his amendment. Amendment No. 123 states that the regulator should,
"prepare a report which provides an overall summary of accounts sent to it by NHS foundation trusts during the year".
Therefore, if the regulator prepares his report for, say, the year ending 31st March 2005, the accounts that he receives during the year to 31st March 2005 will be those prepared for the year ending 31st March 2004. Thus, under the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, his summarised accounts will always be one year in arrears. That seems to me to go against proper accountability. I suggest to the Minister that the wording should refer to
982
the accounts received by the regulator in respect of the financial year rather than those received in the year. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to take away and reconsider this matter before Third Reading.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness. However, as ever in a reasonable mood, I shall consult parliamentary counsel on the wording and write to her.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 126:
Page 116, line 16, leave out "the" and insert "each"
Page 116, line 17, leave out "he" and insert "it"
Page 116, line 17, leave out "it" and insert "them"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 127 not move.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 128 to 137:
Page 116, line 20, at end insert—
"6A (1) The regulator must keep accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may direct.
(2)The regulator must prepare in respect of each financial year annual accounts in such form as the Secretary of State may direct.
(3)The regulator must send copies of the annual accounts to the Secretary of State and the Comptroller and Auditor General within such period after the end of the financial year to which the accounts relate as the Secretary of State may direct.
(3A)The Comptroller and Auditor General must examine, certify and report on the annual accounts and must lay copies of them and of his report before Parliament."
Page 116, line 21, at beginning insert "In paragraph 6 and this paragraph"
Page 116, line 22, leave out from second "the" to first "and" in line 23 and insert "establishment of the regulator"
Page 116, line 28, leave out "his" and insert "its"
Page 116, line 30, leave out "his signature" and insert "the signature of the chairman or deputy chairman or of any member of the staff who has been authorised by the regulator (whether generally or specifically) for that purpose"
Page 116, line 32, leave out "his" and insert "its" Page 116, line 33, at end insert—
"General

(1) The regulator is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.

(2) The regulator's property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.

(3)The regulator must exercise its functions effectively, efficiently and economically."

Page 116, line 38, leave out "office of the"
Page 117, line 2, at beginning insert "Chairman or other member of the"
Page 117, line 6, at beginning insert "Chairman or other member of the"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 138 not moved]
Clause 3 [General duty of regulator]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 2, line 4, leave out "his" and insert "its".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 2, line 5, leave out "performance by the Secretary of State of the"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 140, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141. In Committee, I questioned why the independent regulator needs to be constrained under the terms of Clause 3 to behave in a way consistent with the performance by the Secretary of State of the duties laid down in the National Health Service Act 1977. I do not doubt that it is necessary for the regulator to behave in a way that is consistent with the duties laid down in that Act. However, I regret that he will apparently have to mimic the Secretary of State in the way in which those duties are performed. That seems to be the nearest that one could possibly get to a back-door power of direction.
The Minister disputed that interpretation and said that the duty was necessary to ensure that the regulator kept up to date with the changing times. I paraphrase his words but I do so, I hope, accurately. But, as my noble friend Lord Blackwell acutely pointed out, the duty might be taken to embrace any short-term targets set by the Secretary of State for the rest of the health service and, indeed, any kind of politically based shift of policy. To say that this clause is not to be interpreted as reflecting the political process, which is what the Minister said, is carrying credulity a little far. It is open to just that interpretation.
I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me better than he did last time that the way in which this clause is expressed could not be used as a means of reining in the operational freedoms of foundation trusts. The Minister may well protest that that is the opposite of what the Government are seeking to achieve in the Bill, but micro-management, albeit at one remove, will always be a temptation for Ministers at some point or another. I would like to see it ruled out absolutely. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, we discussed this issue in Committee. We went over the ground of the need for the general duties on the independent regulator to strike the right balance between ensuring consistency with the requirements of the NHS as a whole and retaining the independence of the regulator. That is what Clause 3, as drafted, achieves.
The independent regulator will be required to take account of the wider interests of the NHS by ensuring that he acts consistently with how the Secretary of State will achieve his duties under the NHS. But it is for the regulator to determine how to achieve this. There may be some areas where the regulator needs a steer on what he should use his powers to achieve. The duty in Clause 3 gives him that steer. For example, in deciding what services an NHS foundation trust must provide, the
984
independent regulator must consider the need for comprehensive provision of services. The independent regulator might also include a requirement on NHS foundation trusts to take part in NHS-wide initiatives such as the integrity of information systems and clinical networks. We went over the ground of the integrity of information systems at an earlier stage.
To remove the reference to performance of the Secretary of State's duties, which these amendments would do, is, in our view, not acceptable. It would allow the independent regulator in effect to second-guess how the Secretary of State's policy on ensuring a comprehensive health service across the NHS as a whole was delivered. That is an important consideration, and we believe that this amendment is not appropriate.
I do not know whether I have reassured noble Lords. I should add that the regulator will be supported by a board structure, which was not the case before. Therefore, the idea that the Secretary of State can, so to speak, intimidate five people as well as the regulator is a little far-fetched.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I was not thinking in terms of intimidation; I was thinking of the regulator looking at his duties and construing them in the way that I indicated. I am afraid that although the Minister has clarified the position very helpfully, he has not reassured me. He seemed to be describing the possibility of day-to-day interference by the regulator, which I was hoping he would say would not happen.
I know that the Government do not intend the regulator to intervene regularly in the affairs of foundation trusts. However, the way in which the clause could pan out does not give one cause for confidence that the Government's expectation will be realised.
I do not propose to take this further. However, I remain very concerned about these provisions and the way in which they are expressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) In performing his duties under this Act, the regulator must have regard to such of the following as appear to him to be relevant in the circumstances—

(a) the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases where action is needed;

(b)the different needs and interests of persons using NHS services and in particular of the different interests of children, and of those living in rural and urban areas; and

(c) the principles set out in the compact between the Government and the voluntary sector and the codes of practice set out under it."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I was very grateful for the support I received in Committee from my noble friends Lord Peyton, Lady Cumberlege and

985
Lord Blackwell on this amendment. The primary issue that it covers is set out in proposed paragraph (a). Despite the reassurance that the Minister sought to give, there is nothing in the Bill which says that the regulator has to abide by good deregulatory principles. My question was: if there is nothing in the Bill, what is to stop the regulator ignoring those principles when it suits him?
If Clause 3 can be interpreted as giving a licence to the regulator not just to intervene by exception but to intervene in a quasi-management role in the shoes of the Secretary of State, I believe that a duty of this kind on the face of the Bill is essential. It is not enough to say that the regulator has a duty to act reasonably as a public office holder. Regulators, as I think my noble friend Lady Cumberlege remarked, like to win their spurs by being tough. They frequently do just that. In this Bill, there is no remedy if the regulator does not behave as he should.
Clause 23, which the Minister cited in his defence and which covers interventions by the regulator, is a matter for interpretation in itself. I believe that everyone needs to know that the regulator is legally bound to behave in a proportionate and consistent way. It is not something that should be open to argument. The way in which the regulator sets about his duties will have a direct effect on the operational freedoms and flexibilities of foundation trusts. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment No. 143. I have considerable sympathy with the noble Earl's amendment and what he has said about the duties of the regulator. But we on these Benches wish to go rather further in terms of the general duty of the regulator. Again, we are very much informed by what the Minister said in Committee.
The Minister will notice that the amendment retains the wording that the regulator must exercise his functions in a manner that,
"is consistent with the performance by the Secretary of State".
The noble Lord put a rather heavy spin on the fact that the way in which we had worded our original Committee stage amendment might be detrimental to the way in which the regulator exercises his powers.
In addition to retaining that wording, therefore, we have proposed putting a duty on the regulator essentially to exercise his functions in accordance with a number of principles. They are: the principle of equality of access to NHS healthcare; the principle of universality of access to NHS healthcare; and having regard to the impact of an NHS foundation trust on the local health economy.
The Bill is remarkably deficient in respect of how the regulator is expected to exercise his duties and how that will then impact on the way in which foundation trusts operate. The Minister heard the great concerns that were expressed about the possible impact of foundation trusts on new bodies such as cancer networks and collaboratives in the way in which the foundation trusts might choose to operate. He laid great emphasis in his reply on the duty of co-operation
986
between NHS bodies which now applies to foundation trusts and brings them within the 1999 Act. But that is fairly thin gruel given how foundation trusts could act. We believe that an explicit duty on the regulator to have regard to these principles and to the impact on the local health economy is desirable.
The Minister asserted a number of points in Committee. He said that the creation of trusts will support the development of NHS services in local health economies, and that foundation trusts will exist to provide and develop healthcare services for NHS patients in a way that is consistent with NHS values. I have no doubt that the Minister confidently believes that the foundation trusts will operate in that way. However, there is a lack of levers to ensure that that happens, as the regulator does not have the power to have reference to that. We believe that we would have a far more secure system in which people would have far greater confidence in the way that foundation trusts operate if the regulator had explicit powers to act in that way.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 separately.
I turn first to Amendment No. 142. The duty on the regulator to exercise his functions consistently with the Secretary of State's own duties ensures that NHS foundation trusts are as fully integrated as is possible. The inclusion of these objectives would create ambiguity about what the duty under Clause 3 really means, and could result in conflict between the regulator and the NHS.
I shall discuss the proposed objectives in turn. The objective in paragraph (a) is unnecessary since, as a public office holder, the regulator is under a common law duty to act proportionately and reasonably. The objective in paragraph (b) adds nothing to the regulator's duty to ensure that there is comprehensive provision of healthcare—in line with the Secretary of State's duties under the 1977 Act. As regards paragraph (c), the compact between the Government and the voluntary sector is not and should not be legally binding. It gets its authority from being jointly endorsed by the Government and the community and voluntary sector. This week is Compact Week. I should like to take this opportunity to re-iterate the department's continuing support of the compact. The Department of Health is determined to see all NHS organisations in England signed up to a geographically relevant local compact by 31st March 2004 so that applicants are likely to have local compacts in place when they become NHS foundation trusts.
I shall not go over the ground again but I informed noble Lords in Committee of the progress that had been made in this area at the beginning of this year. We think that we are well on course to deliver the measure. Therefore, paragraph (c) of the amendment seems to us superfluous.
I turn to Amendment No. 143. We believe that this will produce ambiguity in terms of the regulator's duties vis-á-vis the Secretary of State's duties. In addition, the requirements on equity and universality of access in this

987
amendment are superfluous because of the Secretary of State's duties under Sections 1, 3 and 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977. These require the Secretary of State to provide a comprehensive health service which is free of charge and to make provision for clinical training and research. The principles of fairness and universality are, therefore, fully established and the amendment is unnecessary.
Turning to the requirement regarding impact on the local health economy, the creation of NHS foundation trusts will support the development of NHS services in local health economies. Foundation trusts will exist to provide and develop healthcare services for NHS patients in a way that is consistent with NHS values. Over 95 per cent of their income will continue to come from NHS commissioning. They will be under a statutory duty to work in partnership with other local NHS organisations and social services to deliver integrated packages of care centred around the needs of patients. They will be expected to use their new freedoms in ways that fit with key NHS principles and do not undermine the ability of other providers in the local health economy to meet their NHS obligations. We have said that many times and we think that the Bill provides that and that the amendment is absolutely unnecessary.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister repeated almost word for word what he said in Committee about the way that foundation trusts will support the development of NHS services and local health economies. Will he also repeat—this only strengthens our desire to give the regulator explicit duties—what he said in Committee; namely, that,
"it is also our strong belief that employment contracts are a matter for staff, their unions and the employers. They are not issues which should be arbitrated upon by a third party, such as the regulator".—[Official Report, 13/10/03; col. 628.]?
The reason I seek a duty to have regard to the impact of the measure on the local health economy is precisely that the Minister on the previous occasion that we discussed the matter was so adamant that that was not within the powers of the regulator.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I repeated the arguments because they are very good arguments and we have consistency of purpose on this issue. I confirm what I said earlier: it is not the job of the regulator to interfere in individual wage negotiations and terms and conditions negotiations between employer and employee. I do not resile from what I said at an earlier stage of the Bill in any way at all.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I listened carefully to the Minister. I share the perception of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Minister's answer was very similar, if not identical, to the one he gave in Committee. It is clear that I shall not get any further with this point and I see little alternative but gracefully to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 and 144 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 145:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS
The Secretary of State may provide in regulations that decisions of the regulator are to be subject to specified appeal or review mechanisms."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 145 which allows the Government to specify in regulations appeal or review mechanisms against decisions by the regulator.
In Committee I tabled various amendments on the ability of foundation trusts to make representations to the regulator. The Government argued that the common law principles provided a robust framework but we know that that robust framework is the rather inadequate process of judicial review.
Since Committee the Better Regulation Task Force has reported and stated that appeal mechanisms should be introduced for regulators so as to avoid recourse to judicial review which the task force described as time consuming, costly and capable of looking only at process rather than substance. According to the task force, the Government have until next year to issue guidance on best practice for independent regulators but it is not often that a legislative opportunity arises regarding appeal mechanisms. Indeed, we on these Benches hope that there is not another legislative opportunity next year in which to fill the gap on appeal mechanisms. We believe that there is a hole in the Bill related to appeal and review mechanisms. We suggest that it is filled by a regulation-making power so that the Government can implement their own views on best practice with the minimum delay once that decision has been reached. I hope that the Government will seize the opportunity. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. She put them admirably. It seems to me that a permissive clause such as this which allows an appeal mechanism to be inserted in a way that has been approved by the Better Regulation Task Force would fit very well within this legislation.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I see a great deal of virtue in this amendment. It has now become evident for instance that there was no appeal mechanism against decisions of CHI relating to whether or not hospitals should be awarded three stars or two stars et cetera. Now the Government and others are making it quite clear that they hope to introduce an appeal mechanism against decisions of CHAI in that situation. Hence it seems to me entirely appropriate to introduce such a mechanism in this Bill.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, the Better Regulation Task Force included in its recent reports on regulators a recommendation that all independent regulators have an appeals mechanism. The Government will be responding to the whole of the

989
Better Regulation Task Force report on independent regulators around the end of the year. If the Government accept in full the recommendation that all independent regulators have an appeals mechanism, we will of course ensure that provisions are made for such a mechanism for the NHS foundation trust regulator.
However, that report goes much wider than this particular regulator's role, or indeed the NHS, and we do not want to prejudge the outcome of the Government's response to the Better Regulation Task Force report by jumping the gun and putting a provision in this legislation as it is. If the Government decide to accept that mechanism, we will of course have to create a legislative opportunity to implement it. That will cover all the regulators and not just this particular regulator. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment on that basis.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Clement-Jones, for their support. We think that the existence of an appeal mechanism for foundation trusts is important in its own right. We thought that before the Better Regulation Task Force, which is why we tabled alternative amendments in Committee. We continue to believe that that is important. We think that it would be unwise to go forward with this new scheme of regulation for foundation trusts without something quite explicit there waiting to be actioned. I should like to test the opinion of the House on this.
5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 145) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 94.

Division No.2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Ashcroft, L.

Elton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Emerton, B.

Attlee, E.

Ferrers, E.

Avebury, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Biffen, L.

Flather, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Fookes, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Fowler, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Freeman, L.

Byford, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Glentoran, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Goodhart,L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hamwee, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Higgins, L.

Colwyn, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Cox, B.

Howe, E.

Craigavon, V.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Inglewood, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Darcyde Knayth, B.

King of Bridgwater, L.

Dholakia, L.

Kingsland, L.

990

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Rees, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Renton, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Lucas, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Luke, L.

Roper, L.

Lyell, L.

Russell, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,

St. John of Bletso,L.

L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Mancroft, L.

Selborne, E.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Selsdon, L.

Methuen, L.

Sharman, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Sharpies, B.

Miller of Hendon,B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.[Teller]

Monson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Montrose, D.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Moynihan, L.

Strange, B.

Newby, L.

Tebbit, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Tenby, V.

Noakes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Tordoff, L.

Onslow, E.

Trumpington, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Ullswater, V.

Palmer, L.

Wakeham, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Walmsley, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Prior, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ahmed, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Alli, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President)

Harrison, L.

Andrews, B.

Hayman, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hilton of Eggardon,B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bach, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Billingham, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Borrie, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bragg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Brennan, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Brett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Jordan, L.

Brookman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burlison, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Carter, L.

Lipsey, L.

Christopher, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.[Teller, M]

Massey of Darwen, B.

Desai, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mitchell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morgan, L.

Dubs, L.

Pendry, L.

Eatwell, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.(Lord

Rea, L.

Chancellor)

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Richard, L.

Filkin,L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Gale, B.

Rooker, L.

Gavron, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen,B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Sheldon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Simon, V.

991

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Warner, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Weatherill, L

Whitaker, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Wilkins, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turnberg, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.11 p.m.
Clause 4 [Applications by NHS trusts]:
[Amendment No. 146 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 2, line 11, leave out from "trust" to end of line 12.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. In Committee I questioned why, when an application is made by a hospital to become a foundation trust, it is necessary for two approvals to be given, one by the Secretary of State and the other by the: regulator. I am afraid that I was left dissatisfied with the Minister's explanation. The principle espoused here amounts to a duplication, or what my noble friend Lord Peyton memorably referred to as double banking. It is also yet another way of ensuring that the regulator is not as independent as his billing makes him appear. In fact, he is little more than a proxy for the Secretary of State.
Either the Government should be honest and say that the decision is for the Secretary of State acting alone, or they should give the decision to the regulator. Why give it to both? The Minister said that the Secretary of State was in a position to judge whether each trust was ready to go forward based on merit. However, I am pleased to see that, in a later group of amendments, the Government have conceded the point that I made in Committee that the regulator should have regard to quality benchmarks in arriving at his decision. If the regulator will be tasked with taking the decision as well, he is in just as good a position to make such judgments as the Secretary of State.
The Minister also said that the Secretary of State had a role as gamekeeper in overseeing how the policy for foundation trusts was rolled out, and how affordable the rollout was. That is not a good reason, if I may respectfully say so, because it relates not to individual applications but the rate at which applications come forward for approval. The Secretary of State need only be given a veto on the issue. That is what lies behind my amendments. They put the regulator fully in the driving seat, but give the last word to the Secretary of State in case any overriding policy reason prevents the approval being given at that moment. To pretend that the regulator has a free hand once the Secretary of State has given his verdict in the first instance would otherwise be a charade.
I also want to revisit the questions raised by Clause 5. If an application for foundation status is made by a non-NHS body and the Secretary of State is
992
required to approve it first, for what will he be looking? What considerations will he exercise? I do not fully understand what his role is in the first place as regards such applicants or, once again, why the process cannot be left to the regulator. How will the non-NHS bodies fit into the foundation trust structure? I did not get a clear sense of how the Government envisaged the provisions being used, and was left wondering whether it was premature for them to be included in the Bill at all. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, we had a very lively debate in Committee on the respective roles of the Secretary of State and the regulator. I am very sorry that the noble Earl has abandoned his stick of rock metaphor; I quite enjoyed it. I am glad that the metaphor has settled down around gothic, rather than gothic/Byzantine and so on. I shall address the question that he has raised and see whether I can use some different, and I hope more persuasive, words.
The noble Earl asked in Committee who would do the work and what sort of work needed to be done. Essentially, the process that we envisage has two stages, each with different sorts of work. The Secretary of State is vital, because he ensures that the trust is ready to apply. The independent regulator sets the terms of authorisation and authorises the final application. As trusts come forward and the programme rolls out, the function of determining who can go forward and make an application—which trusts are appropriate, fully prepared and ready—is a vital and objective task. The Secretary of State is more concerned with the quality of the application having met the criteria than the rate of application, so I take slight issue with the noble Earl on that. Crucially, no matter what the Secretary of State says, the regulator will make the assessment of whether the authorisation should be issued and under what terms.
Very unusually, Hansard misheard what I said in Committee. I referred to the Secretary of State not as a gamekeeper, but as a gatekeeper. It was as though I had drifted into the debate on hunting, with which I was extremely glad not to be involved. There are enough descriptions of that benighted individual flying around for him not to be a gamekeeper as well.
Members of the Committee queried why the two processes could not be undertaken by either the regulator or the Secretary of State. There was no consensus from the Opposition in Committee about the relative merits of either. Some noble Lords wanted the Secretary of State out of the picture, while others felt that he should do everything. What we have proposed meets the real world of what trusts have to do to prepare the application as well as providing a fully independent process. Having put a board around the regulator, that process is even more robust.
Let me reiterate very quickly that the Secretary of State needs to be involved. He is the person responsible for ensuring provision of NHS care across England. He is responsible for funding the NHS, and will be able to advise on the development of the number of trusts.

993
However, he also knows the landscape of the NHS. The existing management framework means that the Secretary of State and SHAs are uniquely placed to consider the performance and potential of NHS trusts. His basis of responsibility and knowledge, backed up by the guidance and support earlier referred to as necessary by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, means that he has a transparently legitimate and proper role in deciding which applications will be passed to the regulator.
The role of the regulator is very different. There is no pretence of independence; the process will indeed be independent. The regulator alone will determine what terms to set to the authorisation. Under Clause 14, the regulator will determine which health, education and training services the trust must provide, any additional activities that the trust might want to carry out, and what assets are to be protected. He will set the prudential borrowing code, apply the private patient cap, determine the information that the NHS foundation trust must provide, and impose any additional requirement that he sees fit. That is a different process from that of being a gatekeeper. It is indeed a process of determination; of authorisation. I hope that the noble Earl will accept that.
The question relating to what the regulator does has become confused. Is he independent enough? I hope that I have shown that he has a major task to do; a task which is different from that of the Secretary of State at a different stage. As regards independence, there are too many arguments and, frankly, too much evidence to the contrary. Independent regulators have to justify their reputations and roles. We certainly do not expect that he will not reject applications and that he will not want more information. We expect him to be extremely robust and very rigorous.
Amendment No. 154 would allow the Secretary of State to prevent an applicant from being authorised as an NHS foundation trust by objecting to the application. But that is not a satisfactory alternative to his gatekeeper role. That role, as I have explained, is an important part of the process. The amendment brings the Secretary of State into the process at the wrong end—after applications have been prepared and submitted following discussion between the applicant and the regulator.
Our concern, as I said in Committee, is that the impact on applicants could be extremely deleterious. They will have to prepare for applications, and we know that that is a serious process requiring a great deal of time and effort. They will have to submit those applications to the scrutiny of the regulator before their authorisation is granted. However, the amendment proposes that, at the last stage, the Secretary of State can object. It is not clear on what ground.
I suggest that, given the distance the Secretary of State will be from the application process at this point, it would be more likely to be politically inspired judgment than at any other part of the process. The amendment would effectively give the Secretary of State a power to contradict the decisions of the independent regulator and I see that as a recipe for
994
conflict. It would certainly cause confusion over the roles and it would also mean a major waste of resources.
Finally, the noble Earl asked about Clause 5, which allows the non-NHS trusts to come forward. The provision we have made is for the future. It is to ensure that if there are any bodies which are not NHS trusts at the moment but may wish to become so in the future, we will have the capacity to do that. The noble Earl asked about the certification process. I shall be happy to write to him about that because we did not pin it down in Committee.
I hope that on the basis of what I said about the earlier amendment, the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Baroness is always most persuasive, and she gets more so as her time in this House proceeds. I was swept along by her answer. I dare not say that I was persuaded by her words, but I am almost at that point. I shall go away and carefully read what she has said. I am grateful to her for taking the trouble to respond so fully.
I am also grateful to her for picking up the point which was not resolved in Committee. I did not mention it, but it still troubles me that there may be an inconsistency that needs examining. However, for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews Baroness Andrews moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 3, line 10, leave out "he" and insert "the regulator".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 152:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"PUBLIC CONSULTATION
(1) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) by regulations require that an NHS trust proposing to make an application under section 4(1) or any person proposing to apply under section 5(1), shall first consult prescribed persons;

(b) by regulations prescribe persons to be consulted which shall include—

(i) the NHS trusts and Primary Care Trusts in the area in which are resident all or any of the persons to whom the applicant NHS trust has provided goods and services for the purposes of healthcare, or to whom the applicant person (as the case may be) intends to provide such services if its application is successful,

(ii) the Patients' Forums for those NHS trusts and Primary Care Trusts, and

(iii) local staff side trade unions and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers may be affected by the application.

(2) Section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) (functions of overview and scrutiny committee) is amended as follows.
(3)In subsection (3) for "may" insert "shall".
(4)In subsection (3)(b) at end insert "which shall include all matters prescribed under subsection (3)(c) below,".
(5)In subsection (3)(c) at end insert "which shall include any application or proposed application under section 4 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall be brief. Your Lordships, and in particular the Minister, will remember that we and many organisations outside the House were most concerned by the lack of specifics about the consultation needed by a body when applying for foundation trust status. A number of statements were made by Ministers about the fact that regulations would be made.
In the mean time, the Government have tabled an amendment. I have always believed that government amendments are like rare stamps: you need a set of tweezers to hold them up to a lamp in order to ensure that they are the genuine article. I have held the amendment up to the lamp and it looks like the genuine article. It provides a minimum basis for consultation, which is right and proper. Indeed, it seems to cover most of the categories listed in our original amendment.
I shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Minister until I have heard her response. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I intended to make comments similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I express appreciation to the Government for listening to the arguments presented in Committee. I hope and believe that their preferred solution will meet the concerns that were expressed.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am delighted to have that welcome. Cynicism sits most uncomfortably with liberalism, I feel. I apologise for the fact that the amendment was late in being tabled. Given the Bill process in general, arriving at the necessary amendments took slightly longer than we had anticipated, and I am grateful that noble Lords feel that they meet the issues raised. We intended that they should.
We propose to place minimum consultation requirements in the Bill and the details will be left to regulations. Under the minimum requirement, applicants will be required to consult local people, patients and staff. If the applicant is an NHS trust, it should consult its patients' forum—and I know that noble Lords were most concerned about that—key local authorities and any other persons specified by regulations.
Those requirements will apply to the first wave of applicants for NHS foundation trust status and to subsequent waves. The first wave of applicants has already fulfilled the requirement to seek the views of parties, but they have not and cannot seek the views of patients' forums because they will not be in place until 1st December. Once they are in place, the applicants will need to seek the views of patients' forums. Even if
996
the consultation is completed, we envisage that there will be a separate consultation with the patients' forums.
I am pleased that noble Lords have responded so positively, and I am grateful to them.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It was simply the fact that we have not had a great deal of time to analyse the amendment that gave rise to what she says is not compatible with liberalism. I do not know—I find many cynical liberals knocking around the place.
We on these Benches welcome the amendment tabled by the Government. It is right that it should be in primary legislation and not in regulations. In particular, we welcome the reference to patients' forums, which we shall discuss in more detail later on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 6 [Authorisation of NHS foundation trusts]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 15.3:
Page 3, line 27, leave out "he" and insert "the regulator".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 3, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Minister has responded to a particular concern that I raised in Committee about the requirement for foundation trust applicants to demonstrate to the regulator's satisfaction that the membership of their public constituency will be representative of those eligible for membership. It has always seemed to be an impossible requirement to ask of a trust at that stage of the proceedings. I thank the Minister for taking on board that point in the amendments to which he will speak.
However, I remain unhappy about the notion of representative membership. While as an ideal it is incontestably a good thing, it does not seem to me to be something that should appear on the face of the Bill. Bearing in mind that the Government have recognised reality as regards the impossibility of demonstrating that the membership is or will be representative, and that it is now necessary only for a trust to demonstrate that it is taking steps in that direction, I wonder whether we need such an explicit requirement in the clause at all.
I do not suppose that the Government will be inclined to think again about this matter, so perhaps I could follow through the practical implications of what is proposed here. How is a hospital supposed to ensure that its membership is not only representative at the beginning, but continues to be representative year in, year out? What is it supposed to do? What action can it possibly take if it is simply unable to attract sufficient interest within a segment of the population, such as an ethnic minority? At what point

997
will the regulator say that the list of members is unacceptable? The problem with lifting the concept of membership from mutuals is not only who the list contains, but also who the list does not contain. Members have no responsibility to represent anyone but themselves, so the vulnerable people who do not have a voice will remain without a voice.
The other side of that coin relates to single-issue pressure groups. I do not know whether a trust would be within its rights to try to keep out such people, but how is it supposed to know whether such a group exists until its effects begin to be felt at board of governors level? How does one detect secret activists? What does one do when one has detected them? I genuinely do not see how the problem of entryism is to be overcome and I do not believe that the Government really have an answer to that. As I said in Committee, it is likely that trusts and the regulator will need to fudge the whole issue. I am inherently uncomfortable with that notion because it means that a legal requirement on the face of an Act of Parliament is being consciously side-stepped. I return to what I said earlier which is that it would be better not to have it in the Act at all. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the amendment made in another place that produced this clause that the noble Earl does not like was well intended. Clearly, to make such matters work, it is important that the board membership represents the people who are being served by the trust. I have a question for my noble friend. The wording is quite precise as it appears in the Bill at the moment. It states:
"The regulator may give an authorisation … if he is satisfied as to the following matters… that… taken as a whole the actual membership … will be representative of those eligible for such membership".
If the regulator were satisfied that the trust had done all that it could to ensure that there was a representative membership, that would be much easier to work with. My problem is that this matter will be open to many judicial review issues because any pressure group that was dissatisfied could simply look at the membership and say, "We do not understand how the regulator could possibly have been satisfied", and the whole matter would be put in jeopardy. Will my noble friend have a look at this as I suspect that the wording is too tight?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I believe we are getting tired. Some of the comments made make me believe that we are getting to the point where we want to take on the job of parliamentary counsel. We remain fully committed to ensuring that NHS foundation trusts do all that they can to achieve a representative membership, and to avoid capture of the governance arrangements of NHS foundation trusts by particular interest groups or sections of the community. I reiterate that.
However, we accept, as the noble Earl has recognised, that there was a potential difficulty with the drafting of Clause 6(2)(b) which is the condition of authorisation that required the regulator to be satisfied that the foundation trust's,
998
"public constituency will be representative of those eligible for such membership".
That is why we propose to change that to "taking steps". Therefore, we propose to amend that provision—as well as in Clause 27(5)(b), which is the corresponding provision relating to NHS foundation trust mergers—so that the regulator is required to be satisfied that the foundation trust applicant has taken steps to secure that the membership is representative. That mirrors the wording used in Clause 36 and should deliver our intention without placing an impossible duty on applicants for NHS foundation trust status.
I know that some noble Lords have concerns about foundation trusts' abilities to achieve a representative membership. I would argue that most hospitals have a pretty good idea about the make-up of the communities that they serve. If certain groups seem to be under-represented, a foundation trust would need to consider what steps it could take to reach out to those particular groups and encourage them to get involved. We have had much experience in that area in terms of user-group involvement in both health and social care so it is not totally untrammelled territory. The Governance Sourcebook, about which I spoke in Committee and which is available in the Library, includes some ideas for tackling those issues.
Some noble Lords believe that this is a fine aspirational goal and now my noble friend is worried about judicial review. We believe that the wording is right. It represents the reality of the world that probably the build-up of the membership would take time before there was full representative membership and the wording in the new government amendments reflects that. But provided the applicants and the foundation trust can show that they are taking steps and providing the regulator satisfies himself that those steps are being taken, there are no reasonable grounds for thinking that judicial review will be brought into the proceedings.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have no objection to the government amendments, which we will doubtless reach shortly. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the amendment inserted in another place was well intentioned; I certainly cannot think of any objection to its purpose. My only worry is whether it is achievable. It is dangerous to make something that may not be achievable a legal requirement.
Nevertheless, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I am glad that he is confident that the process is unlikely to be open to judicial review under the current wording; I acknowledge that the wording will be much better when we have agreed to the government amendments. I certainly hope that foundation trusts will be guided by good advice when the time comes, so that they genuinely have an inclusive and representative membership. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 3, line 31, leave out from beginning to "will" in line 32 and insert "the applicant has taken steps to secure that (taken as a whole) the actual membership of any public constituency, and (if there is one) of the patients' constituency".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 3, line 39, after "provide" insert—
"( ) the applicant has met quality thresholds set by the regulator and reported on by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection,"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move the amendment only as a means to tell the Minister that I am grateful for listening to the points I raised in Committee and responding to them as constructively he has. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for receiving our amendments in such a gracious spirit. In Committee, I emphasised that financial ability and quality were matters that could be considered by the regulator, but we wanted to be clear that we had listened. To ensure that the regulator takes account of those matters, we propose to amend the Bill to require the regulator to consider an applicant's financial position and any CHAI report or recommendation on the applicant in making the assessment under Clause 6(2)(e). I am extremely grateful for that welcome for the amendments.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withrawn.
[Amendment No. 158 moved.]
[Amendment No. 159 unallocated.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 160 to 161A:
Page 3, line 40, leave out "he" and insert "the regulator"
Page 3, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) In deciding whether it is satisfied as to the matters referred to in subsection (2)(e), the regulator is to consider (among other things)—

(a) any report or recommendation in respect of the applicant made by the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection,

(b)the financial position of the applicant."

Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) The regulator must not give an authorisation unless it is satisfied that the applicant has sought the views about the application of the following—

(a) if the applicant is an NHS trust, the Patients' Forum for the trust and the staff employed by the trust,

(b)individuals who live in any area specified in the proposed constitution as the area for a public constituency,

(c)any local authority that would be authorised by the proposed constitution to appoint a member of the board of governors,

(d)if the proposed constitution provides for a patients' constituency, individuals who would be able apply to become members of that constituency,

(e)any persons prescribed by regulations."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 162A to 164:
Page 3, line 43, leave out from "regulations" to "the" in line 44 and insert "make provision about consultation"
Page 3, line 44, leave out "he" and insert "it".
Page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 165 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Effect of authorization]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) The validity of any act of an NHS foundation trust is not affected by any vacancy among the directors or by any defect in the appointment of any director."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment introduces a provision to ensure that NHS foundation trusts can function effectively by ensuring that their actions are not invalidated as a result of any vacancies or defects in appointments of directors. Such provision is standard for a number of bodies with board structures in both public sector bodies such as the HFEA and FSA and companies. I reassure noble Lords that it is a purely technical amendment proposed by the parliamentary draftsman to ensure that the Bill's provisions will work effectively. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Amendments of constitution]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
Clause 9 [ Variation of authorisation]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 170 to 172:
Page 4, line 30, leave out "him" and insert "it".
Page 4, line 33, leave out "him" and insert "it".
Page 4, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 173 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Register of NHS foundation trusts]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 174 to 177:
Page 5, line 2, leave out "registrar of companies" and insert "regulator".
Page 5, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) a copy of the latest document sent to the regulator under paragraph 26 of Schedule 1(forward planning)"
Page 5, line 16, at end insert—
"( ) Members of the public may inspect the register at any reasonable time.
( ) Any person who requests it is to be provided with a copy of or extract from any document contained in the register on payment of a reasonable charge."
Page 5, line 17, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Clause 11[Power of Secretary of State to give financial assistance]:
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert "including the guarantee of any obligations of an NHS foundation trust"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 180 and 181. The amendments relate to borrowing by foundation trusts.
Amendment No. 179 permits the Secretary of State to guarantee foundation trusts' borrowing. When we debated the matter in Committee, the Minister said that, despite the Treasury saying earlier this year that the Crown will be responsible for the overall liability of foundation trusts, the Government would not back foundation trusts' liabilities. The Minister used the rather coy language of not bailing out poor management, but it is not management who are on the receiving end of financial failure; it is lenders and other creditors. We shall return to their plight in a later group of amendments.
The amendment would give a power, not an obligation, to guarantee liabilities. We are mystified by the Government's earnest desire to carry on guaranteeing PFI liabilities but their flat refusal to take even a power to guarantee other foundation trusts' liabilities. There can be only one reason for that: the Government have no real desire to let foundation trusts have access to private sources of money other than through PFI. We know that that is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants, so that is what is in the Bill. That will distort financing decisions, so we do not support that aspect of the financial regime.
Amendment No. 180 simply asks for an annual report of all the moneys that the Government will pass on to foundation trusts. In Committee, the Minister somewhat disingenuously argued that, because foundation trusts would individually lay their accounts before Parliament, that provided enough scrutiny. That missed the point. The issue is the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament. The amendment calls for a report on what he has done during the year. NHS bodies outside the magic circle of foundation trusts will want to know whether the chosen few get special treatment; so, too, will Parliament. That is what lies behind the amendment. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his response.
Amendment No. 181 proposes the deletion of Clause 11. As part of a financial regime that we think is in a mess, it is an amendment with considerable merit. But I shall not move it on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Baroness raised concerns in Committee that NHS foundation trusts might find it difficult to borrow from the private sector if no guarantee is available. But I repeat that it is an essential aspect of the new
1002
disciplines under which NHS foundation trusts will operate, as the quid pro quo for their additional freedoms, that the Secretary of State will not guarantee debt. I was not being coy in Committee; I stated our exact position.
If the Secretary of State had the power to guarantee debt, it is certain that lenders would expect it to be exercised. That would create the precise problem that the noble Baroness has warned of. It would lead to renewed calls for intervention by the Secretary of State in NHS foundation trusts' affairs and so undermine their freedoms.
Such a power is also unnecessary. Foundation trusts will have access to a wide range of financing options. The clause confers powers for the Secretary of State to make loans to NHS foundation trusts, which they will be expected to pay off as both interest and principal. If it takes some time before the private sector is ready to lend to NHS foundation trusts, they will not be precluded in the mean time from funding capital development plans.
On Amendment No. 180, the noble Baroness makes a reasonable point about accessibility of information on how the Secretary of State uses powers in the Bill to provide financial assistance to NHS foundation trusts. I repeat that we expect that within five years or so all trusts will be eligible to apply for foundation trust status. But introducing a requirement to prepare additional financial accounts for presentation to Parliament is an unnecessary burden.
I can confirm that information about financial support provided to NHS foundation trusts will be included in the Department of Health resource accounts. We will discuss with the National Audit Office the best way of presenting that under the current accounting arrangements.
I hope that that will give some reassurance to the noble Baroness in respect of Amendment No. 180. Given what the noble Baroness said about not moving Amendment No. 181, I will not repeat the arguments that we made in support of this clause at earlier stages.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response and especially for his amplification of the information that may be found in the Department of Health resource accounts. As the House knows, I am one of the few people who actually reads the reports that come from the Department of Health and I look forward to reading that one in due course.
The Minister disappoints me on the earlier amendment, but does not surprise me, because there are issues about the way in which trusts will be financed—whether they are forced into government financing and not given genuine freedom to borrow outside, and whether there is a level playing field between PFI and any other kind of borrowing. We will return to those issues one way or another as we see the Bill on its way to another place. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Prudential borrowing code]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this Act, "borrowing" includes committments to make payments over periods exceeding one year whether or not they are shown on the balance sheet of an NHS foundation trust."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 182, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 197 and 209 in this group. The amendments deal with the interaction between the PFI and the foundation trust borrowing regime and are the same as those that I debated in Committee. I regret that that debate did not shed quite enough light on this area, which is why I have returned to it on Report. As I explained in Committee, the provisions in Amendments Nos. 182 and 209 are, in a sense, alternatives. Amendment No. 182 would provide for PFI liabilities to be included as borrowing for the purposes of the borrowing code. Amendment No. 209 says that for the purposes of the borrowing limit, commitments to make periodic payments, which include PFI, should not be counted.
We think that the Government are in a complete muddle over PFI, because the Chancellor, in the name of keeping the apparent government borrowing levels down, has forced the Department of Health to pursue PFI to an unhealthy degree. The Minister has told me in correspondence that, when PFI deals are scored on the balance sheet, they will be scored as borrowing for foundation trust regimes and not otherwise. What a muddle. The Government are allowing rules set by accountants and derived in the private sector—which the Minister tends to disparage—to drive what is borrowing under this regime. We do not think that the marginal differences that so absorb accountants should be allowed to conceal the truth. All PFI borrowing—for that is what it is—should be openly scored as such. Amendment No. 182 is the correct one.
The Minister told us that the department will be borrowing financial ratios and metrics from the private sector to settle borrowing matters. Very late last night, an e-mail arrived from the Minister's officials setting out the ratios proposed. Having seen those ratios, we can now quite understand the comment of one of the foundation trust applicants as reported in the Health Service Journal on 11th September that,
"you can virtually generate any figure that you one want".
The magic metrics are all about revenue ratios. I will not get into debating the finer points of the ratios themselves, but the most startling thing is that they take no account of balance sheet issues and accumulated liabilities. That is nonsense. Bankers look at balance sheets as well as the revenue accounts and look at the liabilities behind balance sheets. The quality of the free cash flow of trust X with massive overhanging PFI liabilities is much lower than a trust that has managed to avoid PFI. The borrowing capacity will be correspondingly reduced, which is why we believe that PFI borrowing should be explicitly
1004
counted as borrowing. What we have seen of the ratios makes us seriously concerned about this part of the Bill.
Lastly, I have retabled Amendment No. 197, which deals with the impact of PFI deals on the regulator. I asked in Committee—but have not received an answer—what stages of PFI the regulator would be involved and how that might impact on the overall time scales for PFI, which have been far from impressive in many respects. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that question today. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on Amendment No. 182. I have reviewed what the Minister said in Committee, when he claimed that the failure to include PFI liabilities specifically did not drive a "coach and horses through the clause. I used the phrase "coach and horses" at the time. The Minister makes that assertion, but I cannot see how that is sustainable. He said that the servicing of PFI arrangements would be taken into account in setting the prudential borrowing limit for each individual NHS foundation trust. I do not see the chapter and verse for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right to persist in the matter, since a huge amount of the liabilities relating to the capital expenditure of the NHS is now by way of PFI, rightly or wrongly. In my view and that of these Benches, in many cases it is wrongly. But those are the facts of life, and we should be providing for it.
Lord Warner: My Lords, before dealing with the amendments to Clause 12, it might be helpful if I were to mention to noble Lords, who may have a burning desire to have more details about the proposed borrowing code, that the Department of Health is placing on its website a note about the prudential borrowing code. That will include information which has been given to applicant trusts for planning purposes in order to allow them to prepare for NHS foundation trusts. If noble Lords were to find it useful, I can make copies available in the Library.
Amendment No. 182 would require commitments to make payments over periods exceeding one year to count as borrowing. As we discussed when the issue was raised in Committee, it is the Government's view that the amendment is inappropriate and unnecessary. The prudential borrowing limit, which determines the ability of an NHS foundation trust to repay debt, already takes into account payment commitments that affect the free cash flow of an NHS foundation trust. So the prudential borrowing limit already takes account of any such payments. The borrowing limit will be reduced as the commitments are increased.
If, as may be the case, the amendment is intended to ensure that any PFI commitments are included in the NHS foundation trust borrowing limit, it is inappropriate. PFI contracts are not borrowing by the foundation trust and therefore will not be treated as borrowing for the purposes of the borrowing limits to be set for NHS foundation trusts.

1005
Under existing off-balance sheet PFI arrangements, NHS trusts—not foundation trusts—contract with a PFI project company for a service and as such that does not constitute borrowing for trust. That position will be unchanged with NHS foundation trusts.
Amendment No. 197 is designed to allow NHS foundation trusts to dispose of NHS property as part of a PFI deal. The regulator will designate property as protected, if it is needed for the provision of essential NHS services. It is right, therefore, that NHS foundation trusts should not be able to dispose of property needed for NHS services without the regulator's consent. There is no reason why it should be any different for property disposals as part of a PFI agreement.
Amendment No. 209 is also unnecessary. Off-balance-sheet PFI agreements and other agreements involving periodic payments for the use of assets are not a form of borrowing. It is clear that the prudential borrowing limit will not affect a NHS foundation trust's ability to enter into such agreement. There is, therefore, absolutely no need to state this on the face of the Bill.
Noble Lords may find those arguments remarkably similar to the ones I used in earlier stages of the Bill. That is because the position has not changed, our position has not changed, and we do not believe that these amendments are necessary.
6 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that response and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support. We think this is a very important area. It was not a big surprise that the Minister gave similar answers to those he gave previously. The Minister says that PFI agreements are not borrowing. I have to tell him that in the private sector they are generally regarded as such. Those on the other side of the transactions regard them as financing deals. It is something of a myth—encouraged doubtless by the Treasury—that in the public sector they are not.
In fact accounting will catch up with this because international accounting developments tend more and more to treat this as borrowing. So, perhaps the concerns reflected in my amendments will in the not too distant future be dealt with by accounting, which appears at the moment to be driving the result.
I shall make again the simple point that it is wholly illogical to say that payment commitments affecting free cashflow are the beginning and the end of the story. I made the point earlier that the overhang of liabilities affects the quality of cashflow hugely. That would certainly be the case if a private sector lender were looking at the matter. We are of course in the slightly make-believe world of the Department of Health, so the answers I received have not surprised me. I do not think that I will progress any further with the issue today and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert "and have regard to the impact of private borrowing by foundation trusts on NHS trusts' access to capital"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 183, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 184 and 185. The amendments concern borrowing principles. We had a very interesting debate in Committee on the borrowing code. I do not think that it is an exaggeration to say that there was little meeting of minds between the Government Benches and the combination of these and the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Minister promised me an extensive and informative text which would convince me that things were not quite as I would have the House believe. That turned out to be one page of A4 within a rather longer letter. I am sorry to say that it did not convince me.
We have no details of the code. We are told that it is important that the code should have regard to borrowing principles for non-profit, but no one has yet explained what this means. What kind of non-profit? Is it Standard Life or is it the village hall? What exactly is the comparator? We do not know who will be consulted. As I said when speaking on the previous amendment, the PFI will largely be ignored and some slightly strange metrics and ratios will be at work.
Foundation trusts will be able to borrow within this mystical world of prudential codes and borrowing limits. But—and this is the important point—we have the zero-sum game. For every pound that a trust borrows, the department's expenditure limit will be used up. I shall not go through the arguments again today. The Minister has tried to convince us that there is so much money sloshing around that that is not a real issue. We remain unconvinced.
On the whole, the provisions in Clause 12 are financial gobbledegook. We have seen relatively little hard information about the code. The answers that we have received have hardly moved the issue on since first being discussed in another place more than five months ago. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the prudential borrowing code is a figment of the imaginations of young people in the Treasury and the Department of Health.
We think that we have received precious little information because precious little of substance exists. It may be just dressing up political decisions with some kind of plausibility. We do not support that. We do not support the zero-sum game, which is why we have serious concerns about whether Clause 12 should remain in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in speaking to Amendments Nos. 183 and 184, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. The prudential borrowing code is rather like a universal panacea. I refer back to an interesting exchange in Committee between the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said:
"Given that the prudential borrowing code has to fit the external expenditure limit of the department, there has to be a basis on which the borrowing code must relate to the overall

1007
expenditure of the department. Therefore, there must be a fair share basis between foundation trusts with a borrowing code and non-foundation trusts with a traditional approach to access to capital".—[Official Report, 13/10/03; col. 727.]
What is interesting is that the Minister agreed. Later, when replying to me, the Minister said:
"I am saying that the regulator has a requirement to take account of the wider interests of the NHS across a range of his duties".—[Official Report, 13/10/03; col. 728.]
There seems to be a feeling that the prudential borrowing code settles everything. But one of the fundamental objections to the current structure of foundation trusts is to be found precisely in the whole area of borrowing by foundation trusts, which is unsatisfactory in all kinds of ways. In one sense, it is far too restrictive and too little information is available. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, the prudential borrowing code should include PFI. If the borrowing powers of foundation trusts are to be truly free, they should be much broader. They should be free of the trammels of the Treasury. On the other hand, in exercising their borrowing powers, they should take regard of the local health economy and regional priorities,. That is not squaring a circle or an unusual way of proceeding; that seems to be a sensible way of proceeding.
I think that the department has got it entirely the wrong way around. It is bound into the zero-sum game, described by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, yet it still does not have to take account of local health priorities and the local health economy, thus getting the worst of both worlds. It seems to be a topsy-turvy situation. No wonder that so many of us and so many outside organisations have such doubts about this part of the Bill.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think that Benches opposite believe that if they repeat zero-sum game in a rather mantra-like way, it will necessarily be true. I do not resile from what I said earlier. There is no more zero-sum game under foundation trusts than there is under the present set of arrangements. We are operating within a context where, as I said earlier, we have £8 billion more in the capital budget spend over a four-year period. We are not operating as in the past. I think that some noble LĻords opposite forget that the world has moved on since they were in government.
There is more money going into the NHS, but there are still the same requirements. People must have priorities. They must borrow and use capital in a way that reflects particular needs in particular localities. Nothing has changed. But we have a more generous funding environment in which the NHS operates.
I am a little confused, but I think that we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 183, 184 and 185. I shall therefore deal with those amendments together. There is a simple reason why the prudential borrowing code is not available: as the Bill makes clear, it is to be set by the independent regulator, who has not yet been appointed. We are wonderful people in Richmond House, but we cannot actually produce the prudential borrowing code—a matter that is clearly causing much frustration—because it is not our job to do so, it is a task for the independent regulator.
1008
In doing that, the independent regulator must take into account commercial best practice for issuing loans to the not-for-profit sector and must consult interested parties, including NHS foundation trusts themselves. It is not for the Department of Health to determine how much borrowing individual NHS foundation trusts will undertake, but their capital expenditure will score on the Department of Health balance sheet, as we have said already.
Amendment No. 183 would require the regulator to take account of generally accepted principles that apply to loans in setting the prudential borrowing code. We think that that is inappropriate. The code places a limit on overall borrowing, but it does not set the terms and conditions under which loans are issued. Those are matters for lenders, not the regulator. However, loan repayments affect the free cash flow of NHS foundation trusts and therefore will be reflected in the calculation of a trust's individual prudential limit.
If, as I thought was the case, Amendment No. 183 is aimed at elucidating how the prudential borrowing code will be calculated, I shall give the noble Baroness some further information. The independent regulator is required to take account of generally accepted principles used by financial institutions to determine the amounts of loans to non-profit-making bodies. The independent regulator can also take account of whatever principles he thinks appropriate in determining the prudential borrowing code; the inclusion of the words "amongst other things" in Clause 12(2) makes that clear. The reason for requiring that, at a minimum, he takes account of principles relating to non-profit-making bodies is that the assessment of the creditworthiness of not-for-profit bodies is somewhat different from that in the for-profit sector, and necessarily more restrictive because there is no equity holder to fall back on in times of financial turbulence.
On the nature of the principles and whether they differ between the range of bodies across the non-profit-making sector, I can tell the noble Baroness that financial analysts employ a range of hard and soft analytical techniques in assessing creditworthiness. Overall, the techniques aim to ensure that debt is kept to prudent levels commensurate with the institution's revenue-generating capacity. I am sure that the independent regulator will wish to look at all types of not-for-profit bodies when assessing the creditworthiness of NHS foundation trusts.
As regards Amendment No. 184, the independent regulator must, by virtue of Clause 3, exercise his functions in a manner consistent with the performance by the Secretary of State of the duties under Sections 1, 3 and 51 of the National Health Service Act 1977. That includes a duty to provide a comprehensive health service free at the point of use. In drawing up the prudential code, the independent regulator will have to take account of the impact of any borrowing on the wider NHS as part of his Clause 3 duty. NHS foundation trusts will not rob Peter to pay Paul, and we believe therefore that Amendment No. 184 is unnecessary.

1009
I do not doubt that I have not satisfied the noble Baroness, but at least I have the virtue of consistency in my argument.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right. It appears that we all have mantras. He remarked that our mantra was the "zero sum game", which I must tell him that we sincerely and absolutely believe to be the case. However, he too has one: "more money in the NHS", which seeks to suggest that all the problems of the health service have somehow been solved.
Some of this comes down to not being able to share with the House the prudential borrowing code because of the fiction—I believe that it is a fiction—that the regulator needs to issue it. Our intelligence suggests that work is going on with someone who ultimately may be appointed as the regulator and that this is not completely virgin territory. However, if the Minister does not wish to share that with the House, he can expect the scepticism to remain on this side as regards whether the provisions are soundly based.
I shall not pursue the issue today. I shall consider again what the Minister has said, but I believe that we shall return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 184 and 185 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Public dividend capital]:
[Amendments Nos. 186 to 188 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Authorised services]:
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, Amendment No. 189 has been lost in the mysteries of what transpired earlier in the day.
[Amendment No. 189 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 6, line 38, leave out ", subject to any restrictions in the authorisation"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 190, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 192 to 194 inclusive. I would have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, had there been room to do so. I very much support the case that he so eloquently put in Committee to safeguard teaching and research in our medical schools and universities.
The hospitals on whom those medical schools and universities depend cannot, and must not, be allowed to sidestep or wind down their role or their research ethos. I am sure that I am not the only Member of the House who noted with concern the report by the Academy of Medical Sciences, published recently in the BMJ, which identified several factors impairing experimental medicine and clinical trials and research generally.
The factors that came out of that report were, in some cases, familiar: the lack of research funding for clinical trials; inadequate facilities to undertake
1010
patient-orientated clinical research; and limited numbers of clinical academics. Those are familiar issues. They are, none the less, worrying but they are at least familiar. However, one contributory factor adduced in that report was the pressure on NHS beds and facilities in teaching hospitals. That is pushing out clinical research so that the NHS has less capacity to evaluate the new tools that are emerging from academia and industry. I consider that to be very worrying.
However, I revert to my own amendments. My feeling is that this clause, and the way that it is worded, needs to strike the right balance. Surely it cannot be the job of the regulator to stipulate that particular programmes of research should be pursued in a foundation trust. Maintaining research activity and promoting a research ethos is one thing, and I very much support that, but prescriptively insisting on specific programmes is surely another. Still less, it seems to me, is it acceptable for the regulator to prescribe in that way without reference to the available resources and manpower within the trust. If a programme of research is simply unaffordable and there is good reason for a hospital to feel that it cannot continue with it, the regulator needs to take that into account in the way that he acts.
I am troubled, too, by the words in Clause 14 which enable the regulator to stipulate restrictions in the activities in which a foundation trust may engage. In Committee, the Minister gave some examples of such restrictions. I did not find his explanation at all convincing. The restriction on private patient income is dealt with in Clause 15. Here, we are apparently dealing with non-healthcare income-generating activities.
Given that Clause 14(2) provides that the principal purpose of the trust must be the provision of healthcare, goods and services, I do not understand why the Government feel that the regulator needs to concern himself with clipping the wings of foundation trusts in ways which prevent them supplementing their income. Engaging in commercial R &D projects, providing non-clinical amenities and leasing space to hairdressers—some of the things mentioned by the Minister on the previous occasion—seem to me perfectly legitimate activities for a foundation hospital within the context of its overall healthcare functions. Why, and in what circumstances, should the regulator intervene to prevent those activities? I beg to move.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 191. I am grateful to have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. To have accumulated the support of so many noble Lords on this amendment pleases me enormously.
Amendment No. 191 emphasises rather better what I tried to do in a previous amendment in Committee. It draws attention to our major teaching hospitals— those with medical and dental schools have a specific role to teach and undertake research. Because of that, they have considerable numbers of university and other academic staff working in them, carrying out

1011
research, teaching and looking after patients. It is vital for these hospitals to have systems in place to ensure that these activities can continue.
They have some difficulties, even now, and many of those were described very well in the report referred to by the noble Earl from the Academy of Medical Sciences, which is improving or enhancing clinical research. However, I fear that foundation hospitals, with their new-found freedoms, will—if they survive— tend to neglect this responsibility in the face of more economically attractive activities. I will not go on because I talked about this subject at some length in Committee, but 1 hope that my noble friend will give us some comfort on this.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tumberg. I confess to being somewhat baffled by the Government's approach. I read very carefully what the Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg. To pray in aid Clauses 14(5), (5) and (6) in the face of a very explicit amendment such as this seems extraordinary.
The Minister said in Committee that,
"we think there is already adequate provision in the Bill to ensure that the regulator protects the needs of research in giving a particular authorisation".—[Official Report, 13/10/03. col. 738.]
However, the legislation is hedged about with the word "may".
I think it is worth quoting from a letter which the Minister has had from the Association of UK University Hospitals. It is extremely eloquent and asks many noble Lords to go into the lists again on this issue. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, put down the amendment again. The letter says:
"High quality teaching in research and hospitals are vitally important, not only to patients and to improving standards of care but also to the science base of this country and to the economy now and for the future. University hospital trusts are keen to ensure that they can continue to foster medical research in teaching. But they humbly urge you"—
this is directed at the Minister; I would not have been quite so humble in the circumstances—
"to ensure that a way forward is found which will protect the future health of the nation".
All at the meeting, representing almost all the UK medical schools in university hospitals, the deans and the chief executives, were unanimous in their wish to express support for this amendment. That is highly significant; they do not feel that the Bill adequately represents their interests. I agree with them and I very much hope that the Minister will reconsider his response to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I will speak briefly to this amendment, to which I have added my name. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for having tabled this crucial amendment.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has already mentioned the report from the Academy of Medical Sciences. The one item he did not mention in his list of reasons was that companies have expressed concern that in the past decade, the United Kingdom has declined as an
1012
attractive location for clinical trials. One of the issues cited is a less welcoming culture. This important amendment would reverse this culture, allowing the hospitals to carry out the vital research which they recognise enhances their patient care.
The lack of capacity for research will stop the translation of discoveries in basic science into clinical practice. The NHS, however, is highly dependent on critical evaluation of new diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, as the Government acknowledged when they set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. But the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is dependent on the results of really high quality research which is evaluated on the population it is designed to serve.
I wish to quote a warning from the primary care sector. I refer to all the changes that have occurred in primary care. I have been sent a raft of correspondence. The Professor of Primary Health Care at Bristol University writes that,
"hardly a week goes by without some correspondence with a practice which usually revolves around them saying they cannot teach on a particular course in that academic year. Anything you can do to help us, I am sure would be extremely gratefully received by the Society for Academic Primary Care".
There is a teaching and research crisis already and it is getting bigger. All the deans and all the chief executives from the university hospitals, many of whom are in the first wave of applications for foundation trust status, realise that this matter has to be recognised by the regulator as constituting a terribly important role if they are to advance into the future and take forward in the NHS the care that we deliver to our patients.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in supporting this group of amendments very warmly, and in echoing what has been said by several other noble Lords, I remind the Minister that, as he well knows, from the inception of the National Health Service in 1948 the pursuit of clinical research has been one of its clearly expressed objectives. Indeed, the existence of a publicly funded health service has been greatly envied by people in other countries who recognise that such a service provides outstanding opportunities for the pursuit of clinical research. It is important to repeat what my noble friend has just said; namely, that basic research in disease mechanisms and clinical research, including the pursuit of clinical trials, nurture future developments in patient care. That cannot be expressed strongly enough. It is therefore extremely important that these amendments are accepted.
From time to time within recent years, particularly during a period of financial constraints on the health service, there has been expressed in certain quarters a feeling by members of the public and others that research is a rather exotic activity that ought not to be funded— if it is being funded—at the expense of funding for patient care. One understands that view but 1 believe that the point I have just made about the nurturing of clinical care through research outweighs that particular argument.

1013
Amendment No. 190 is important because if the phrase,
"subject to any restrictions in the authorisation"
is left in the Bill, it would give the directors and the boards of governors of foundation trusts the opportunity to divert funds away from research activity to other objectives that they regard as being of higher priority.
I turn finally to the wording of Amendment No. 191. I have been in correspondence with the Minister about the wording. I am uncomfortable with it but I understand the reasons he gave for it. Unlike the old days when a teaching hospital was closely associated with a medical school or a dental school, nowadays teaching is often widely dispersed throughout regions. For example, in the region that I know best, the northern and Yorkshire region, there is the University Hospital of North Durham and the James Cook University Hospital in Middlesbrough. These trusts— if they become so—do not include medical and dental schools but are closely associated with them.
Nevertheless I appreciate what the Minister told me in his very courteous correspondence—that this wording has been used in previous NHS Bills. Hence I suppose we must accept it. The only very minor modification I would suggest to Amendment No. 191 is that it should apply particularly to trusts which include a medical and/or dental school because there are quite a number of universities that have both a medical school and a dental school. These amendments are very important and I hope that the Minister will give them a fair wind.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall, if I may, deal first with Amendments Nos. 190, 192 and 193 before turning to Amendment No. 191. Amendment No. 190 removes the regulator's power to restrict NHS foundation trusts' non-healthcare activities. The principal purpose of a National Health Service foundation trust, if I may remind the House, is to provide NHS services to NHS patients. However, the Bill provides for National Health Service foundation trusts to carry out other activities with the objective of generating surplus income to support the NHS principal purpose. These provisions parallel the income generation powers already available to NHS trusts. So they are carrying on a tradition.
I gave examples earlier of income generation activities but I shall repeat them. Such activities might include running occupational health services on behalf of non-NHS employers; engaging in commercial R&D projects; providing non-clinical amenities for patients, staff and visitors such as internet facilities; leasing space to service providers such as newsagents or hairdressers; and providing private health services. In normal circumstances, the regulator would not intervene in these activities. However, it is right that he should have the power to place restrictions on income generation activities where there is a danger that they could interfere or conflict with or detract from the principal purpose of providing NHS services. That is
1014
why we have the provisions as they are in the Bill and why we think that Amendment No. 190 is inappropriate.
I turn to Amendment No. 192. The regulator must act reasonably, and as such must take into account the resources available to a National Health Service foundation trust when authorising its services. The regulator can only require the foundation trust to do what it can reasonably be expected to do. We therefore think that this amendment is also unnecessary.
Amendment No. 193 requires the regulator to take account of the views of the NHS foundation trust and its members when authorising services. We think that this amendment also is unnecessary. The regulator is a public body that must act reasonably. That would include taking the views of the trust into account when deciding its authorised services. The regulator may also wish to seek the views of NHS commissioners and/ or the strategic health authority when doing so, to ensure that it has all the information necessary about the local health economy to allow it to make an informed judgment. So, again, we think that this amendment is superfluous.
I have to confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the thinking behind Amendment No. 191 which was tabled by my noble friend and other noble Lords. In my day job—that is, when I can spare a bit of time from appearing in your Lordships' House—I have responsibility for research and development. We recognise that the NHS has great scope for translating basic scientific discoveries more quickly into benefits for patients. It is worth mentioning that the cancer translational network has shown some of the promise in this area.
I acknowledge noble Lords' point about the quality of the recent report by the Academy of Medical Sciences. It is a very well argued report which the Government will take very seriously indeed. Another report, on biosciences and innovation, is soon to be published by a group chaired by Sir David Cooksey. The Government want to look at these two reports together and then state publicly how we can take some of these issues forward. I do not diminish in any way the seriousness of some of the points that noble Lords have made. We have to make both progress and improvements in this area.
However, I do not think that the way forward is to accept Amendment No. 191. Although I understand the sentiments behind it, I gently say to my noble friend that accepting his amendment will not bring about the necessary changes. As I said earlier, and at the risk of repeating myself, the regulator, under Clause 14(4), (5) and (6), must authorise an NHS foundation trust and may require it to provide education and training and carry out health-related research. The regulator therefore is empowered to require the provision of education, training and research.
There is provision there for the regulator to ensure that the needs are properly attended to. In setting terms for the authorisation, the independent regulator will need to act in line with his general duty in

1015
Clause 3, which is still too often overlooked. Noble Lords will no doubt remember that under the clause, as I have said before, the regulator is required to exercise his functions in a manner consistent with the Secretary of State's duties under the National Health Service Act 1977. That includes the duty in relation to university clinical teaching and research.
With the greatest respect to my noble friend and other noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment, I say that we accept very much the need for action and improvement in the area, but that the amendment is not the way forward. We need something a good deal more practical on the ground, and we hope to turn our attention to the issues very shortly when we receive Sir David Cooksey's report.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I clearly cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, but I am a little disappointed that the Minister was not able to issue anything more than warm words for his amendment. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that it has received very strong support from all quarters of the House. Nevertheless, he was helpful in pointing out the provisions in the Bill that could comfort the noble Lord as regards the duties of the regulator on this important matter. We must note for the time being what the Minister said and reflect on it.
I will not dwell too long on my amendments. I am clearly disappointed that the Minister has, once again, rejected them. I am not sure what power exists at present to restrict the activities of NHS trusts, apart from the ministerial power of direction. Restricting the activities of foundation trusts seems inherently against the spirit of what the Government are trying to do in the Bill. I am still not sure that I understood why it was necessary to have the power and in what circumstances it was likely to be used.
I have a feeling that I have had before, which is that I shall not get very much further with this particular point. I shall have to go away and see whether I wish to return to it at Third Reading. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Turnberg Lord Turnberg had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 191:
Page 7, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) The requirement referred to in subsection (6) will apply particularly to trusts which include a medical or dental school provided by a university."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall express an interest that I apologise to the House for failing to express before. I was a member of the panel that produced the report of the Academy of Medical Sciences.
I am grateful to my noble friend for his response. I cannot say that I am not disappointed, but I shall have to go away and hide my tears. He has a strong interest in the matter and I know of his work in other areas, so I take some comfort from his words and from what I know that he is trying to do. I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 191 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 192 to 194 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Private health care]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 7, line 43, at end insert—
"( ) Every NHS foundation trust shall publish a statement of its total income and expenditure relating to the goods and services referred to in subsection (4) in each financial year."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is very important to establish from the outset that the motives of those who wish to see the private patient capacity of foundation hospitals properly used, and if possible maintained at its current level, do not derive from some atavistic desire not to have private patients in NHS trusts, or some disapproval of NHS trusts or foundation hospitals having private patients. Largely, it is simply about the proper use of the capacity of foundation hospitals and ordinary NHS trusts, and to ensure that we—the taxpayers, the public—get proper value for money in terms of how hospitals use that capacity.
When we last debated the issue, there was scepticism on the Minister's part as to whether NHS trusts could properly be accused of loss making on their private beds. But in stunning Technicolor, effectively, since Committee the NAO, largely thanks to the former Secretary of State for Health, Frank Dobson, has set up an inquiry. It is in response to the evidence he has unearthed from University College London Hospital showing that all is not particularly well. Mr Dobson has discovered that the hospital has unrecovered debt worth more than £4 million on a private turnover worth £13.4 million. He is highly sceptical as to whether UCLH is able to make a profit on private work in those circumstances.
All that goes to show that utter transparency as to the costs and income deriving from private patients is required. This is an opportunity to have that transparency in foundation hospitals, which will be freer than ordinary NHS trusts in the way in which they operate.
Ministers may believe that we slavishly recycle amendments from Committee to Report stages, but I have not reintroduced the cap amendment that we tabled in Committee. This amendment is a more effective mechanism. It is designed to elicit from foundation trusts their exact operating costs and income relating to private patients. It would open up that area of their operations to public scrutiny and that is right. We should not expect the NAO periodically to conduct inquiries into whether foundation trusts are genuinely making a profit from their private patient activities. We should expect that as a matter of course from the new foundation hospitals. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment No. 196. The Minister will be well aware that we disagree completely on Clause 15 not simply as to the philosophy underlying it but also as to its unnecessary prescriptiveness. It is unnecessary, even in the Government's own terms taken in the context of

1017
Clause 14(2), which obliges a foundation trust to have as its principal purpose the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service.
I referred charitably to the philosophy underlying the clause but I am not so sure that there is one beyond the purely political antipathy to private medicine. But the clause will bite deeply on hospitals such as the Nuffield Orthopaedic, which depend on a certain amount of private patient income but which for sound, strategic reasons saw a marked drop in that income during the base year 2002–03. If the base year level of private patient income is to be an absolutely fixed and immutable bottom line for the purposes of the clause, hospitals which find themselves in this position will be in great difficulty. Is there room for the regulator to show flexibility in this regard where there are exceptional circumstances to justify it?
My second question relates to an issue I raised in Committee but which the Minister did not address. It is the situation of a trust which perfectly reasonably wishes to invest in an expensive item of equipment, such as a scanner. Let us suppose that the hospital can construct a business case for doing so, but only on the basis that the scanner is let out to the private sector in the evenings and at weekends. If Clause 15 is interpreted rigidly, the likelihood is that the hospital will be unable to buy the scanner because it would breach the ceiling on private income. That cannot be a sensible position. It will force hospitals to adopt solutions that are much less advantageous, but for what purpose? No one gains. Therefore I ask the Minister whether in this type of instance the regulator will have discretion to raise the ceiling of private-patient income that a foundation trust is allowed to generate.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, I support both amendments in this group, although I realise that procedurally that is difficult. On Amendment No. 196, I believe that the Government is becoming caught by the mantra of zero-sum game in believing that there is only a fixed amount of resource to share out. I would certainly welcome an NHS in which money followed the patient and in which every patient effectively had the money in his or her hands to buy the health service that he or she wanted and in which there was no distinction between private and NHS patients. Patients would have equal choice, not just those who could afford it.
However, we do not have that health service at the moment and the Government are not proposing that. Therefore, we are faced with the reality of a health service in which those who rely on NHS funding are, in effect, rationed by the amount of funding that the Government are prepared to supply. In that situation many people are not able to get the care and attention that they want to receive within the timescale that they feel is appropriate. Therefore, many people find from
1018
their own pockets or their own insurance schemes the resources to pay for private operations and private care.
I believe that that is a good thing. Such people bring more money and resources into the health service. They end up providing the funding to pay for more consultants, more nurses and more operations and often help to fund equipment that may be used for those treated in that hospital under the NHS. It is an unfortunate circumstance that people feel that they need to pay to receive faster or better quality treatment than they can receive under the NHS, but while we have an NHS that drives people to do so, we should encourage that for the benefit of patients in the NHS as the resources that are applied to the NHS will be shared among fewer people. One person who pays for treatment privately is one fewer person competing for the resources allocated to the NHS. Therefore, I believe that the clause is misguided and that we should have no such limit.
However, I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has said, that if hospitals are to provide services to the private sector, it would be helpful for them to provide an income statement that shows that they are covering their costs. It would certainly be unfair and improper to have a competitive market in which NHS hospitals used their cost position to under-cut private providers in a free market. Therefore, my ideal outcome would be for the Government to withdraw Clause 15 as it currently stands and to substitute in its stead solely Amendment No. 195. I await the Minister's reply without too much expectation.
Lord Warner: My Lords, a secret of political success is to lower expectations. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has moved away from his ideas on a cap. I gently say to him that the fact that the NAO is setting up an inquiry does not prove his point in any way on loss-making. I am sure that he takes comfort from it, but I do not believe that the point is valid. The NAO looks at all kinds of things and we look forward to seeing what it has to say in that area when it produces its report.
On Amendment No. 195, we support the principle that information about income and expenditure from private healthcare must be available and publicly accessible. However, the amendment is unnecessary and could require NHS foundation trusts to produce the same information in different statements. The annual accounts, which must cover income and expenditure from private healthcare and income and expenditure from NHS healthcare, will already be made public. The annual accounts must be presented at a public meeting of the board of governors. Under the provisions of the slightly mauled Schedule 1—to which I am sure that we shall return later—the annual accounts must be made publicly available. To require the information to be published separately would place additional burdens on NHS foundation trusts, without delivering any additional benefit to patients or the public. Information on private healthcare expenditure will already be available, so I suggest that we do not pursue the amendment.

1019
Turning to Amendment No. 196, it will come as no surprise to noble Lords opposite that we are rather attached to Clause 15. It gives the independent regulator power to place restrictions on non-NHS activity and requires the regulator to place a cap on the total level of income derived by an NHS foundation trust from the provision of services to private patients. That is what we seek to do; we do not want arrangements under which private healthcare is expanded at the expense of NHS patients. I understand where many Opposition Peers are coming from. Arithmetically, it must be true: that if trusts perform more private healthcare they will bring in more money, but the point is that they may do so at the expense of services to NHS patients. That is why Clause 15 is in the Bill.
Income derived from provision of services to private patients will be capped as a percentage of total income from clinical activities. The percentage will be fixed at that which applied for each foundation trust in the financial year ending in April 2003. In essence, that will prevent NHS foundation trusts from doing a higher proportion of private work than they do today. Of course, because it is a percentage, if the volume of clinical activity increases, naturally—arithmetically— the amount of private healthcare can increase.
However, there is deliberately no flexibility to vary the cap because, as I said, the purpose of defining the cap is to avoid gaming in any way whatever. So we reject Amendments Nos. 195 and 196.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I fear that the rules of Report make response interesting in such circumstances. I have sympathy with the Minister's response to Amendment No. 196, because we would not want Clause 15 deleted. We should be vigilant about the proper use of NHS capacity On the other hand, the Minister is a little blithe in saying that transparency will be present in the accounts that foundation hospitals will be obliged to produce.
How particular areas of cost or income are categorised is very much at the discretion of those who perform the accounting for the foundation trust. If the Minister can point me to something in Schedule 1—as eliminated earlier this afternoon; that rather spectral Schedule 1—that absolutely specifies that private income and the costs and income attributable to that activity will be contained in the accounts and will be transparent for all to see, I will agree with him that the amendment is unnecessary. But I do not believe that that provision is there.
For instance, capital building development may take place that affects both an NHS wing and a private wing. The capital costs, the cost of repayment of loans, and so on, will be stated in the accounts but will all be mixed together. Income may be lumped together for both NHS and private patient activity. The Bill does not specify that that must be separate. It may be specified in a code of practice or code of accounting that exists in shadowy form in the Department of Health, but I do not see it. It is important that, when
1020
there is a public presentation of the accounts, as the Minister mentioned, the public can see clearly how NHS capacity is used in those circumstances.
I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, said. Sometimes the proper use of beds for private patients is right. It can be wholly beneficial if it creates a super profit that enables hospitals to buy equipment and testing facilities for the benefit of NHS patients. But it would not be right if a UCLH situation were established by the NAO, as Mr Dobson seems to believe to be the case. In those circumstances, we should be extremely vigilant. I hope that the Minister will consider the issue. We must continue to tease out the matter during the next stage of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 196 not moved]
Clause 16 [Protection of property]:
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 8, line 7, at end insert "but does not include property acquired subsequent to the date of its establishment as an NHS foundation trust"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 201, 202 and 204. The amendments concern protected property in Clause 16. I should say at the outset that I shall not move Amendment No. 204 to leave out Clause 16.
The protected property regime was designed initially to give effect to what used to be called a lock on NHS assets. We have no fundamental problem with that and can see the necessity for the state to be able to control the NHS assets that endow foundation trusts. But we have real problems with later-acquired property, especially if it is acquired for non-regulated activities. We want foundation hospitals to be entrepreneurial in their actions and we believed that the Government shared that aspiration.
Amendment No. 198 would allow the trust to keep its later-acquired property away from the regulator's clutches. The Minister said nothing in Committee to provide us with any real comfort that entrepreneurialism would be valued in foundation trusts. That is why we have returned to the question on Report. My simple question to the Minister is: where is the incentive for NHS foundation trusts to be entrepreneurial?
Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 deal with flexibility from a foundation trust perspective. They would allow the trust to challenge the designation of property as protected and to apply for property to be de-designated. The Minister said in Committee that the administrative law is a great protector of foundation trusts. But he knows full well that the only remedy available to foundation trusts will be judicial review. That is not adequate protection, which is why explicit provisions to allow flexibility are needed in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall speak first to Amendment No. 200, tabled by the Government, before considering Amendments Nos. 198, 201 and 202. Amendment No. 200 is a straightforward technical measure to ensure that assets associated with protected research and training carried out by NHS foundation trusts—that is, research and training services that they are required to provide under their terms of authorisation—can be protected against disposal under Clause 16 in the same way as property required for the provision of essential NHS healthcare services.
That means that NHS foundation trusts will not be able to sell or grant security against any asset required for the provision of essential training and research services. That may reassure my noble friend Lord Turnberg, given his earlier concerns.
On Amendment No. 198, we believe that NHS foundation trusts reflect a form of social entrepreneurialism. That entrepreneurialism should not take place without any restraint. Amendment No. 198 would exclude any property acquired after establishment as an NHS foundation trust, whether or not it was needed for the provision of NHS services. It is essential that new property, when it is used to provide NHS services, is covered by the regulator's powers to protect NHS assets to safeguard the continuity of essential NHS services for patients. The amendment would jeopardise the continuity of provision of essential services.
Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 seem to be designed to place the regulator under a statutory duty to take account of representations from NHS foundation trusts when considering the initial protection of property and declassifying once-protected property and to give the regulator the power to declassify protected property. However, the regulator already has powers to declassify protected property under the powers to vary an authorisation in Clause 9. The amendment to allow that is therefore unnecessary. As I explained in Committee, the regulator is under a common law duty to act reasonably, and discussions with NHS foundation trusts would naturally form part of the process of determining and revising the list of protected assets. The amendments are therefore unnecessary because the regulator already has the power and the obligations proposed by the amendments.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He is clearly setting a pattern of wanting to disappoint these Benches with his responses, and I reassure him that he has achieved that yet again. I doubt that we will have a meeting of minds on this matter, because we want freedoms for foundation trusts. That is one of the most important elements that should be part of any foundation trust regime. The Government think of controlling and limiting. That will remain a fundamental difference between us. I shall obviously consider carefully what the Minister has said. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 199 and 200:
Page 8, line 8, leave out "he" and insert "it".
Page 8, line 11, at end insert "or
"( ) for the purpose of doing anything which the trust is required to do under section 14(6)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 not moved.]
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 8, line 12, leave out "he" and insert "it"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 8, line 18, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

"(2) The trust shall have no constraints on its right to borrow except as outlined in subsection (3).

(3) A trust's total borrowing shall not exceed 100 per cent of its total revenues without the approval of the regulator."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 207 and 210 and, in doing so, will start the final chapter for today of the issue of borrowing provisions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 205 would do away with the narrow, controlling, annual borrowing limit envisaged in Clause 17. It sets what is in effect a high borrowing ceiling and does not require the regulator to involve himself in further detail. Lying behind this is the presumption that the best people to determine whether to lend money to a foundation trust are the lenders. Of course, a major part of the financial needs of a foundation trust will be advanced by the Department of Health. I cannot see that an annual borrowing limit set by the regulator will help the Department of Health one iota in its decisions about whether to advance money to NHS trusts as loans or public dividend capital. Even in the Department of Health, lending is more complicated than that. It will certainly be no help whatsoever to private sector lenders—if there are any. They will make their own assessment of borrowing capacity and will be quite unmoved by anything that the regulator sets.
What is the borrowing limit in the Bill? It is a mechanism devised by the Treasury to control foundation trusts. That is why we believe that it should be eliminated from the Bill, which is what Amendment No. 201 would achieve. If it remains Amendment No. 207 would allow that straitjacket to operate in the real world by giving the foundation trust the opportunity to ask for a review. That ability needs to be explicitly allowed for in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 206. I apologise for being absent for most of today's proceedings. I have been an NHS user, and I am pleased to give that particular trust three stars for its work this afternoon.

1023
There is a horrible perception that we on these Benches are in cahoots with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I seek to dispel that straightaway in the remarks that I am about to make. Amendment No. 206 takes a completely contrary view to that outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We believe there should be a limit. She might agree that that is sound, and a lender might consider it prudent.
The difference in our amendment is that we believe that the duty should lie with the trust itself. We do not see any point in the responsibility lying with the regulator. In the Bill, it is possible still to limit the amount of regulation and to make sure that the services are right. Where a foundation trust has assets, it is simply good management that it does not place them in jeopardy. Therefore, we believe that it is a fairly unexceptional and wise move. We do not see why the freedom to be wise should not be held at a local level and we can dispense with the regulator's services.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 208. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some reassurance. On reading the Bill, I note that,
"An NHS foundation trust may give financial assistance … to any person for the purposes of or in connection with its functions".
On reading those words, I became concerned that foundation trusts might be able to act as bankers. I am concerned that perhaps the scrutiny associated with the application for financial assistance from a person who wanted money to carry out work for the foundation trust might entail a degree of hoodwinking of the trust. The checks and balances as regards the accounts and the way in which the person operated might not be in place.
I was concerned that there was no limit put on that procedure by the regulator. I can understand that a foundation trust with good financial planning might foresee that, at some stage, it might need to make an advance or a loan with a specific contractor in an area involving high expertise associated with research development. I am concerned that the matter is left completely open to the trust board. I seek reassurance from the Minister. It was because of that concern that I tabled the amendment with the wording to the effect that the function of being able to lend should be stipulated in an authorisation.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has returned from her experiences with the NHS so satisfied and able on this occasion to distance herself from noble Lords opposite.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 205 and 206, as I explained in Committee and in debate on Clause 12, the prudential borrowing code will give NHS foundation trusts the freedom to borrow to invest in services within a limit that ensures that NHS services are not put at risk. Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 would take away that balance. Both amendments would allow NHS foundation trusts to borrow without regard to their cash flow. That would be irresponsible and could endanger patient access to essential NHS services.
1024
I turn to Amendment No. 207. Clause 17(3) provides that the prudential borrowing limit must be reviewed annually by the regulator. That will provide ample opportunity to take account of changes in an NHS foundation trust's circumstances. The amendment should therefore be rejected.
I turn to Amendment No. 208. An NHS foundation trust's functions are set out in its authorisation; for example, under Clause 14(1), the regulator must,
"authorise the NHS foundation trust to provide goods and services for purposes related to the provision of health care".
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that I think that that fairly safely will ensure that NHS foundation trusts do not join Barclays in the marketplace. An NHS foundation trust cannot have functions outside its terms of authorisation. That is a clear part of the Bill. Therefore, any action by an NHS foundation trust, including the giving of financial assistance which is consistent with its functions, is also by definition consistent with its terms of authorisation. That does not mean that people can simply become—willy-nilly—bankers in the sense normally meant by that term. Because of the controls of authorisation by the regulator, Amendment No. 208 is unnecessary and would, in fact, have no legal effect.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, while the Minister is still on his feet, perhaps I could press him a little further. The service certainly would be stipulated in the terms of authorisation, but, suppose, for example, that an NHS trust wanted to rebuild a renal unit and was looking to a contractor to do that. The contractor might say that it was the only one and that it would require an advance. It might require an inappropriately large advance. It would be difficult to see how the foundation trust would necessarily have the safeguards in place. That would be public money being loaned to someone making inappropriate demands.
I have a concern regarding the safeguard to the public purse with regard to the details around which money might be requested. That goes down further to the micro-management level than to the explicit functions that would be stipulated in the authorisation. I cannot see an authorisation being able to stipulate everything down to the minutiae. In fact, it would be inappropriate to do so with devolved responsibility to the trust. My concern is about the potential safeguard of loans from the public purse of NHS money.
Lord Warner: My Lords, an authorisation may include any terms, including terms about financial powers. That will be down to the regulator when considering particular sets of proposals from trusts. On the example cited by the noble Baroness, I would say that none of that changes a public body's responsibility to secure value for money in the way it spends its money. None of it would enable particular payments to escape the eagle eye of the auditor. So, if a trust engaged in practices that were inappropriate, leaving aside the authorisation, one would expect those to come to the notice of the auditor and to be the

1025
subject of comment. The combination of the auditor and the market authorisation should give the noble Baroness the assurances she seeks.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, seemed to want to distance herself from these Benches. I have to say that the noble Baroness was not very far away in what she said. The Minister might have thought that some satisfaction would be derived from seeing us disagree, but in fact we do not disagree much. I agreed with much of what the noble Baroness said. She could see no role for the regulator and would have things left, in effect, to the good sense and responsible attitude of the foundation trusts. That is not a million miles from the position in which we find ourselves. We just sometimes use slightly different language to express our views. Therefore, the Minister will not be surprised that I did not take much comfort from what he said. Again, there is a difference of opinion between a controlling attitude and one based on freedoms and responsibility.
Our vote will always be for freedoms and responsibility and not for central control, which is what we thought the policy was designed to achieve. I shall not pursue that theme today, but I believe that it will arise in one way or another when we continue deliberations on Report or at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 210 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Clause 18 [General powers]:
[Amendments Nos. 211 to 213 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Information]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 214 and 215:
Page 9, line 8, leave out "to him which he" and insert "which the regulator".
Page 9, line 8, leave out "his" and insert "its".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 216 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Entry and inspection of premises]:
[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Fees]:
[Amendment No. 218 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Trust funds and trustees]:
[Amendment No. 219 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Failing NHS foundation trusts]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendments Nos. 220 to 222:
Page 10, line 8, leave out "he" and insert "the regulator".
Page 10, line 10, leave out "He" and insert "The regulator".
Page 10, line 11, leave out "he" and insert "the regulator".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Voluntary arrangements]:
Lord Warner Lord Warner moved Amendment No. 224:
Page 10, line 23, leave out "he" and insert "it".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 10, line 23, leave out "may" and insert "must"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 225, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 226 and 227, which are identical to those that I tabled in Committee. I want to come back to one point in particular; namely, the issue raised in Amendment No. 226, which was not resolved last time. Nor was it clarified in the Minister's letter to me, for which I thank him.
If a trust found itself in financial difficulties, it could, itself, invoke the processes referred to in Clause 24(2) under the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986. In those circumstances, it would make sense for the board to trigger a moratorium or to make a proposal for a voluntary arrangement. A decision of that kind would be momentous for a trust. But it would be right to allow such a decision to be left to the responsible, good sense of the board. After all, the board will be the first to have inklings that all is not as it should be.
I hope that the Minister can reassure me that this idea will not be discarded, but that it will be considered when the regulations are drawn up. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 225, although the regulator's powers to impose voluntary arrangements are discretionary, the situations in which he would exercise his power are clearly set out; that is, when it is necessary or desirable. The regulator is under a duty to act reasonably, including exercising his powers under Clause 24 if it was in the public interest and he was satisfied that it was appropriate to do so. That covers the kind of situation about which the noble Earl is concerned and we believe therefore that Amendment No. 225 is unnecessary.
I turn now to Amendment No. 226, which seems to be designed to ensure that the regulator must take action if he is approached by the board of governors requesting that steps be taken under Clause 24 to obtain a voluntary arrangement. I presume that this is prompted by concerns that the regulator is the only body that can initiate voluntary arrangements procedures, and that the NHS foundation trust has no role set out in legislation.
The regulator is a public body and, as such, must behave reasonably and responsibly. This means that he must consider any approach made to him and respond appropriately. Should the board of governors or, for that matter, the board of directors or any creditor of an NHS foundation trust approach the regulator requesting that voluntary arrangements be started, the regulator must consider that request. Having been approached, the regulator would need to consider if it was "necessary or desirable" to bring procedures and, if so, would issue a notice starting the process.

1027
While I understand and am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment, I am satisfied that the provisions as drafted achieve the necessary position. I hope that this response will reassure the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 not moved]
Clause 25 [Dissolution etc]:
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) An order under subsection (3) may not transfer assets or liabilities to any person without his consent."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 228, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 229 to 231. We now move on to consider what happens to the liabilities of a foundation trust when it fails.
We were somewhat thwarted in our discussions in Committee because the Minister's officials failed to deliver in time a document outlining the Government's intentions for the insolvency regime. Our discussions were therefore inconclusive. That document has subsequently surfaced and, while it answered some of the points that were raised in Committee amendments, it posed further worries about the financial failure regime.
The Government have already confirmed that they have no intention of taking a power to guarantee the liabilities of a foundation trust. Indeed, we debated the point again earlier this afternoon and the Minister made the position perfectly clear. Let me be clear in return: if the Government do not have a power to guarantee the external liabilities of an NHS foundation trust, the effect of the insolvency provisions set out in Clauses 24 to 26 makes it likely that any financial pain caused by the financial failure of a foundation trust will fall wholly on external lenders and other creditors.
Unless the Government accept the amendments in this grouping, or propose something similar, there is one message that should go out from this House: no creditor or lender in his right mind should lend a penny piece or advance credit to a foundation trust. NHS trusts are a much better bet because the Secretary of State will pick up their liabilities. Foundation trusts put creditors in a worse position than the creditors of Enron.
The combined effect of Clauses 24 to 26, as helpfully explained in the Government's memorandum to which I referred earlier, is that the Secretary of State can take whatever assets he likes from a failed foundation trust; he can decide whether any of the liabilities should be paid off in full and transfer them to another part of the NHS, and he can leave whatever assets and liabilities he does not like to the ordinary course of insolvency law. We should be clear that this is worse than Enron. At least the creditors of that company know that the
1028
assets will be realised and the creditors paid off in accordance with a non-discretionary legal framework. That is not the case for foundation trusts. The Secretary of State can choose what assets are left over and what liabilities remain. This is not an insolvency regime, it is a daylight robbery regime.
Amendments Nos. 229 and 230 seek to reverse the position. Amendment No. 229 would ensure that the insolvent trust will receive value for the assets that the Secretary of State takes out. Let me make it clear: we have no problem with the Secretary of State ensuring that essential NHS services are continued. It is quite right that the Secretary of State should be allowed to keep assets needed to deliver services. However, it is not right that he should be able to asset strip if the effect of that is to leave ordinary creditors high and dry. If there is a residual financial loss, that should be shared. It is absolutely not right to leave the loss in one place only: the private sector.
Amendment No. 230 stops liabilities being transferred if there is likely to be insufficient money for all the creditors. At present, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to cherry-pick liabilities. If he likes the creditors, he can transfer their debts to a new part of the NHS where they will be paid in full. If he does not like them, he will leave them behind to take whatever pickings are left at the end of the day. Again, that is a way in which the private sector can, and probably will, be victimised by the failure regime. We do not consider that to be appropriate.
Amendment No. 228, which heads this group, merely asks that the NHS body which receives assets or liabilities has an opportunity to consent or, in effect, to refuse. We know, for example, that the Secretary of State has guaranteed PFI liabilities. If a foundation trust were involved in a PFI deal and then failed, the Secretary of State would be keen to pass on that liability. But if a PFI deal turned out to be a bad one— and the jury is definitely still out on the long-term value for money of PFI deals—a recipient trust should have the opportunity to decline the Secretary of State's apparent generosity.
The insolvency provisions are very seriously wrong. We must not allow the Government to create a regime which can be so heavily dependent on discretion and so heavily weighted against the private sector. Amendment No. 231, which would delete Clause 25, is not the right approach because there needs to be a rational regime for financial failure. Clause 25 does not provide that but, as amended, it would come closer to an equitable solution. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we did not have much time to discuss insolvency provisions during the Committee deliberations. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords, even at this hour, will forgive me if I spend a few moments setting out the procedure for winding up—in all senses of the word perhaps.
I reject the bold statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we are engaged in daylight robbery. As I said previously, in the event of failure, the Government will stand behind NHS patients and NHS

1029
essential services. The failure regime for NHS foundation trusts gives priority to providing continuity of essential services. Clause 25(3) allows the Secretary of State to transfer assets used in the provision of essential services and the associated liabilities from a failed NHS foundation trust to another NHS organisation. Schedule 3 provides for the transfer of employees involved in providing those services. The expectation is that suppliers and contractors will want to continue to supply to the new provider as they will want to keep the business. Therefore, so far as concerns the patients, essential NHS services will simply continue in the normal way.
Assets of a failed NHS foundation trust which are not transferred by the Secretary of State under Clause 25(3) will then be dealt with under a bespoke winding-up regime. Clause 25(6) of the Bill contains the power for secondary legislation to prescribe that regime. It will be created by applying, with appropriate modifications, the provisions in Part 4 of the Insolvency Act, which deals with winding-up procedures.
Here, we are proposing to apply Part 4 with as few modifications as possible to ensure that the regime is as fair as possible to creditors. An NHS foundation trust can be wound up only if the independent regulator makes an application to the High Court and the court orders that it be wound up. However, if directors, governors or creditors of an NHS foundation trust considered it to be necessary, they could approach the regulator and ask him to start the process. The winding up would then proceed more or less as if it were an ordinary creditors' voluntary winding up.
The liquidator will aim to realise the remaining assets of the NHS foundation trust and distribute the proceeds, after costs to creditors, under the hierarchy of distribution established by the Insolvency Act. That means that certain employees' claims are paid first as they are preferential creditors and, after the preferential creditors are paid, the remaining creditors are treated on an equal basis.
The pool of assets available in the liquidation at this stage of the process will, of course, be limited, as assets used to provide essential NHS services would have been transferred to another NHS organisation. Therefore, we need to ensure that those granting credit to NHS foundation trusts understand the basis on which they are dealing with them. It is clearly very important that the insolvency regime applied to NHS foundation trusts is completely transparent so that those who are thinking of doing business with them can properly assess the risks, particularly should one fail.
In that context, let me turn briefly to Amendment No. 228. It is unnecessary because both the Secretary of State and the regulator are under a common law duty to act reasonably. Discussions with bodies which were to receive assets and liabilities of a dissolved NHS foundation trust would in any case form a part of the transfer process because the regulator would be
1030
required to consult these bodies before the powers in Clause 25 of the Bill, including the transfer of property and liabilities, could be exercised.
Furthermore, Clause 25 includes a requirement for prior consultation by the independent regulator before any actions can be taken under Clause 25 leading to the dissolution of an NHS foundation trust. This means that the consultation must occur in advance of any transfer. This consultation will concentrate on the transfer of property and liabilities and is likely to cover a range of interests, including bodies with responsibilities for NHS services such as the strategic health authority, PCT commissioners and other neighbouring NHS trusts or NHS foundation trusts. These are the bodies which may receive property or liabilities by virtue of the transfer order. The bodies would have had opportunity to see the proposed transfer and would have the opportunity to respond to the regulator if they had concerns about the proposals. Seeking their consent is not, therefore, needed, as through the consultation process they will have the opportunity to make any objection known.
Again, Amendment No. 229 is unnecessary. Where a transfer takes place under subsection (3), the fair value of the property, less any associated liabilities, will be matched by the issue of public dividend capital to the receiving organisation. Public dividend capital is, in itself, a liability so the effect on the organisation's balance sheet will be neutral. The issue of payment would not therefore arise.
On Amendment No. 230, I have already set out how we expect the failure regime for NHS trusts to work. Transfer of property and liabilities associated with the provision of essential services is an integral part of that process. It ensures that NHS services can continue to be provided to NHS patients, even if a foundation trust is going through winding-up procedures.
If a foundation trust has failed, despite intervention from the independent regulator, it will, regrettably, generally be unable to meet all of its liabilities before being wound up. So the effect of the amendment would be to block the transfer of assets required for the provision of essential services, making them subject to winding-up procedures. This would put the continuing provision of NHS services seriously in doubt. It would completely undermine the objective of the failure regime and mean that the regulator would not be meeting his Clause 3 duty.
Against that background, I hope the noble Baroness will reconsider her position on these amendments.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and will of course want to read it carefully. However, let me give him an overview of my initial reaction to his comments. I am appalled. He seems to think that ordinary creditors dealing with trusts would try to research whether they were creditworthy for what they were being supplied with. That is quite unprecedented in the NHS, which is why I said earlier that the message should go out from this House to all people who trade with NHS trusts and

1031
think about lending to NHS trusts that these are not the kind of bodies they should touch with a bargepole. They should simply avoid it.
The regime that the Minister has very carefully explained is designed, in the name of continuity of services—to which we do not object—to isolate the weakest creditors who would be supplying foundation trusts. The Minister said that they will want to carry on trading with any successor body. However, these are weak people who can be pushed around by this heavy-handed regime. This is quite unlike any insolvency regime that exists anywhere in the public sector and certainly has no real equivalent in the private sector. I can assure the Minister that before speaking today I took the advice of a very eminent individual who has been associated with the Society for Insolvency Professionals. The analysis that I produced was confirmed by him.
1032
I simply did not understand some of the points that the Minister made. That may be because of the approaching "curfew" for this House. I shall, of course, need to read those remarks. However, I leave the Minister in no doubt whatever that this is a subject to which we shall return. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 229 to 231 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eight o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Post-primary Education
  Northern Ireland: Post-primary Education
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Appointment of Chief Executives
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Appointment of Chief Executives
  East Belfast: Vacant Buildings in Government Estate
  East Belfast: Vacant Buildings in Government Estate
  Northern Ireland: Police Overtime and Compensation Agency Payments
  Northern Ireland: Police Overtime and Compensation Agency Payments
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Magistracy: Diversity
  Magistracy: Diversity
  Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
  Law Officers' Advice: Disclosure
  Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
  Iraq: Legality of Armed Force
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: Litigation Costs
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: Litigation Costs
  Crown Prosecution Service: Staffing
  Crown Prosecution Service: Staffing
  Iraq: Post-Conflict Risks
  Iraq: Post-Conflict Risks
  European Parliament
  European Parliament
  Global Conflict Prevention Pool
  Global Conflict Prevention Pool
  UNDP: Small Arms and Demobilisation
  UNDP: Small Arms and Demobilisation
  Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum
  Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum
  Export of Small Arms to South and Central America
  Export of Small Arms to South and Central America
  British Citizens in Prison in EU
  British Citizens in Prison in EU
  Mr Pierre Falcone
  Mr Pierre Falcone
  Iraq: Governing Council
  Iraq: Governing Council
  Iraq: Constitution
  Iraq: Constitution
  ECHR: Ratification of Protocol 4
  ECHR: Ratification of Protocol 4
  Zimbabwe: British Nationals
  Zimbabwe: British Nationals
  EU Draft Constitutional Treaty
  EU Draft Constitutional Treaty
  Colombia: Human Rights
  Colombia: Human Rights
  British Nationals Overseas
  British Nationals Overseas
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Bermuda: Constitution
  Bermuda: Constitution
  Gulf War 1990–91 Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91 Vaccines
  Defence Systems and Equipment Exhibition
  Defence Systems and Equipment Exhibition
  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency: Key Targets 2003–04
  Future Command and Liaison Vehicle
  Future Command and Liaison Vehicle
  Older People: Social Research Projects
  Older People: Social Research Projects
  Employment Act 2002: Section 30
  Employment Act 2002: Section 30
  e-Mails and Information Security
  e-Mails and Information Security
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
  Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme
  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme
  Broadband
  Broadband
  Universities: Funding
  Universities: Funding
  NHS Hospitals: Clinical Research Support
  NHS Hospitals: Clinical Research Support